var arr = [];
var count = 1000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
arr.push(i);
}
var arrLen = arr.length;
var sum = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < arrLen; i++){
sum = arr[i];
}
var sum = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){
sum = arr[i];
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Cache length | |
Do not cache |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Cache length | 536986.9 Ops/sec |
Do not cache | 487976.6 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.
Benchmark Definition
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for accessing an array length property: caching it in a variable versus getting it directly within the loop.
In summary, the benchmark defines two test cases:
var arrLen = arr.length;
) and then uses this cached value to iterate over the array.for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){ ... }
).Options Comparison
The two approaches have different pros and cons:
Caching (Cache length)
Pros:
Cons:
Not Caching (Do not cache)
Pros:
Cons:
Library/Function Considerations
There is no explicit library or function mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript environments (e.g., V8) might optimize array length properties using a technique called "inlining" or "register allocation," which can affect the performance characteristics of these test cases.
Special JS Features/Syntax
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. The code only uses standard JavaScript syntax and conventions.
Alternative Approaches
Other alternative approaches to compare might include:
Array.prototype.length
instead of arr.length
Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. The benchmark definition provided is a simple comparison of two approaches, but there are many other factors to consider when optimizing array length property access.