Benchmark: Cache vs direct call

Script Preparation code:

var data = {x: 1, y: 2, z: 3}

Tests:

Cached
var d = data.x if(d == 5 || d == 4){}
Cached 2
var d = data.x if(d == 5 || d == 4){} if(d == 5 || d == 4){}
Cached 3
var d = data.x if(d == 5 || d == 4){} if(d == 5 || d == 4){} if(d == 5 || d == 4){}
Direct
if(data.x == 5 || data.x == 4){}
Direct 2
if(data.x == 5 || data.x == 4){} if(data.x == 5 || data.x == 4){}
Direct 3
if(data.x == 5 || data.x == 4){} if(data.x == 5 || data.x == 4){} if(data.x == 5 || data.x == 4){}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cached
Cached 2
Cached 3
Direct
Direct 2
Direct 3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark definition json represents a simple script that tests the performance difference between using a cached variable and making direct calls to a variable in an if statement. The script preparation code defines a single object, `data`, with a single property, `x`, initialized to 1, 2, or 3.

Here's a breakdown of what's being tested:

**Options being compared:**

1. **Cached**: Using a cached variable (in this case, `d` is assigned the value of `data.x`) and then immediately reusing it in an if statement.
2. **Direct**: Making direct calls to the variable (`data.x`) in each iteration of the if statement.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Cached**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster since the variable is only looked up once.
	+ Cons: May lead to longer compilation times due to the additional lookups required during optimization.
* **Direct**:
	+ Pros: Can be slower, but can also reduce compilation time since there are no additional lookups required.
	+ Cons: Requires more function calls, which might incur overhead.

In general, for simple if statements like this one, the cached approach is likely to perform better due to reduced variable lookups. However, as the complexity of the code increases, the benefits of caching may decrease, and direct access might become a better choice.

**Library usage:**

There doesn't appear to be any external libraries being used in these benchmark definitions. The script relies solely on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in this example. However, it's worth noting that some special features like `const`, `let`, and `var` declarations might affect the performance of cached vs direct calls.

**Other alternatives:**

Some potential alternative approaches to testing this scenario include:

* Using a loop with multiple iterations
* Adding more complex logic within the if statement (e.g., conditional statements, loops)
* Comparing the results of using a cache mechanism (like memoization) instead of directly accessing the variable
* Testing different optimization levels or compiler settings

Keep in mind that microbenchmarking can be sensitive to many factors, including the specific test cases used and the hardware/software configuration being tested.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.186 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 64 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cached	10113097.0 Ops/sec
Cached 2	10254862.0 Ops/sec
Cached 3	10079045.0 Ops/sec
Direct	5079145.5 Ops/sec
Direct 2	2499743.8 Ops/sec
Direct 3	1717746.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Cache vs direct call (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Cached vs Cached 2 vs Cached 3 vs Direct vs Direct 2 vs Direct 3

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Cached

Cached 2

Cached 3

Direct

Direct 2

Direct 3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):