Benchmark: Lazy test vs call

Script Preparation code:

function mkLazyTest(fn) {
  var thunk = fn, ran = false, value = null;
  return function() {
    if (!ran) {
      value = thunk();
      ran = true;
    }
    return value;
  };
}

function mkLazyCall(fn) {
  var thunk = fn;
  var get = function() {
    var value = thunk();
    get = function() { return value; };
    return value;
  };
  return function() { return get(); };
}

function cfn(v) { 
  return function() { return v; }
}

var fn = cfn(1);
var lz1 = mkLazyTest(fn);
var lz2 = mkLazyCall(fn);
var i = 0, iterations = 1000;

Tests:

Lazy with existence test
for (i = 0; i < iterations ; i++) { lz1(); }
Lazy with fetch call
for (i = 0; i < iterations ; i++) { lz2(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lazy with existence test
Lazy with fetch call

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches to implement lazy functions: `mkLazyTest` and `mkLazyCall`. A lazy function is a function that returns a value only when it's actually needed, rather than immediately. This can be useful for improving performance by delaying unnecessary computations.

In this case, the test defines three functions:

* `cfn`: a simple function that takes an argument `v` and returns another function that simply returns `v`.
* `mkLazyTest(fn)`: creates a lazy version of a function `fn`. When called, it checks if the value has already been computed. If not, it computes the value and stores it. On subsequent calls, it simply returns the stored value.
* `mkLazyCall(fn)`: creates a lazy version of a function `fn` by replacing the original function with an object that acts as a thunk (a closure). When called, this object executes the original function and caches its result.

**Comparison**

The test compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **Existence Test (`mkLazyTest(fn)`)**: This approach checks if the value has already been computed by checking a boolean flag `ran`. If not, it computes the value and sets the flag.
2. **Fetch Call (`mkLazyCall(fn)`)**: This approach replaces the original function with an object that acts as a thunk. When called, this object executes the original function and caches its result. The cached result is stored in a variable `value` and returned on subsequent calls.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Existence Test (`mkLazyTest(fn)`)**:
	+ Pros: simple to implement, easy to understand.
	+ Cons: may lead to unnecessary computations if the value is computed multiple times.
* **Fetch Call (`mkLazyCall(fn)`)**:
	+ Pros: avoids unnecessary computations by caching results.
	+ Cons: more complex implementation, requires a thunk object.

**Library/Function Descriptions**

The `mkLazyTest` and `mkLazyCall` functions are custom implementations for creating lazy functions. They don't rely on any external libraries or frameworks.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to implementing lazy functions include:

* Using a decorator (e.g., `@lazy`)
* Utilizing async functions and await
* Implementing a custom cache using a library like Redis or Memcached

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and maintainability.

The benchmark results show that the Fetch Call approach (`mkLazyCall(fn)`) outperforms the Existence Test approach (`mkLazyTest(fn)`). This suggests that caching results using a thunk object can lead to better performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/92.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lazy with existence test	38811.3 Ops/sec
Lazy with fetch call	38988.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lazy test vs call (version: 0)

Tests if a lazy implementation that uses a test vs one that replaces the thunk function is more efficient

Comparing performance of: Lazy with existence test vs Lazy with fetch call

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lazy with existence test

Lazy with fetch call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):