Benchmark: Proxy Test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

let translation = {
    KEY: 'value'
};

function getTranslation(k) {
    return translation[k];
}

function getProxiedTranslation(k) {
    const proxyHandler = {
  get: function(target, prop) {
    if (!target[prop]) {
      return 'missing'
    }
    return target[prop];
  }
};
    return new Proxy(translation, proxyHandler)
}

Tests:

Get existing translation
getTranslation('KEY')
get Proxied translation: existing
getProxiedTranslation('KEY')
get Proxied translation: non existent
getProxiedTranslation('NOERROR')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Get existing translation
get Proxied translation: existing
get Proxied translation: non existent

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Get existing translation	27152746.0 Ops/sec
get Proxied translation: existing	10105561.0 Ops/sec
get Proxied translation: non existent	10196899.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of accessing translations using two approaches:

1. Direct access to the `translation` object
2. Using a Proxy to intercept and manipulate property accesses on the `translation` object.

**Direct Access Approach**

In this approach, the code directly accesses the `translation` object using the `getTranslation()` function. The benchmark measures the execution time of calling `getTranslation('KEY')`, `getProxiedTranslation('KEY')`, and `getProxiedTranslation('NOERROR')`.

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation
* Easy to understand and maintain

Cons:

* May not handle edge cases or unexpected property accesses well
* Does not provide any additional functionality beyond direct access

**Proxy-based Approach**

In this approach, a Proxy is created to intercept and manipulate property accesses on the `translation` object. The benchmark measures the execution time of calling `getProxiedTranslation('KEY')` and `getProxiedTranslation('NOERROR')`.

Pros:

* Provides additional control over property access behavior
* Can handle edge cases or unexpected property accesses more effectively

Cons:

* More complex implementation compared to direct access approach
* May introduce additional overhead due to Proxy creation and management

**Proxy Library**

The benchmark uses the built-in `Proxy` constructor in JavaScript, which creates a Proxy object that can intercept and manipulate property accesses on an underlying target object.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only utilizes standard JavaScript features and syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between the direct access and proxy-based approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: The proxy-based approach may introduce additional overhead due to Proxy creation and management, which could impact performance.
* Code complexity: The proxy-based approach is more complex compared to the direct access approach, which may make it harder to maintain and understand.
* Edge cases: The proxy-based approach can handle edge cases or unexpected property accesses more effectively than the direct access approach.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance could include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite: A set of benchmarks developed by Google to measure the performance of the V8 JavaScript engine.
* JSPerf.com: A popular online platform for running and comparing JavaScript benchmarks.
* Microbenchmarking libraries like `micro-benchmark` or `benchmark`: These libraries provide a simple way to write and run microbenchmarks in JavaScript.

In summary, the benchmark measures the performance of accessing translations using two approaches: direct access and proxy-based access. The choice between these approaches depends on the specific requirements and trade-offs between simplicity, performance, and code complexity.

Related benchmarks:

Proxy Test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Get existing translation vs get Proxied translation: existing vs get Proxied translation: non existent

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Get existing translation

get Proxied translation: existing

get Proxied translation: non existent

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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