Benchmark: setPrototypeOf vs getPrototypeOf

Tests:

setPrototypeOf
var a = {} Object.setPrototypeOf(a, Object.prototype)
getPrototypeOf
var b = {} var prototype = Object.getPrototypeOf(b) if (prototype !== Object.prototype) { Object.setPrototypeOf(b, Object.prototype) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
setPrototypeOf
getPrototypeOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**What is tested:**

The test measures the performance difference between two approaches to set the prototype of an object in JavaScript:

1. `Object.setPrototypeOf(a, Object.prototype)`: This approach uses the `setPrototypeOf()` method to set the prototype of object `a` to `Object.prototype`.
2. `var b = {}\r\nvar prototype = Object.getPrototypeOf(b)\r\nif (prototype !== Object.prototype) {\r\n\tObject.setPrototypeOf(b, Object.prototype)\r\n}`: This approach first gets the prototype of object `b` using `Object.getPrototypeOf()`, checks if it's not equal to `Object.prototype`, and then sets the prototype using `setPrototypeOf()`.

**Options compared:**

The two options differ in when they set the prototype:

* `Object.setPrototypeOf(a, Object.prototype)` sets the prototype immediately after creation.
* The second approach (`if (prototype !== Object.prototype)`) only sets the prototype if it's not equal to `Object.prototype`. This is likely a test for cases where the initial prototype has already been set or is different from `Object.prototype`.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Immediate prototype setting (`Object.setPrototypeOf(a, Object.prototype)`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies code and reduces overhead.
		+ Ensures consistency in how prototypes are set.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur performance penalties if the initial prototype is not `Object.prototype`.
2. **Delayed prototype setting (`if (prototype !== Object.prototype)`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can reduce performance overhead if the initial prototype has already been set.
	* Cons:
		+ Makes code more complex and harder to reason about.

**Library:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, both `Object.setPrototypeOf()` and `Object.getPrototypeOf()` are part of the JavaScript language specification and are implemented by most modern browsers.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

In JavaScript, there's another way to set the prototype without using the `setPrototypeOf()` method:

`Object.create(Object.prototype)`

This creates a new object with the given prototype. However, this approach is not tested in the provided benchmark.

Keep in mind that benchmarking performance differences like these can be complex and depend on various factors, such as the specific use case, JavaScript engine, and environment. These benchmarks are intended to provide a general idea of the relative performance characteristics of each approach.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
setPrototypeOf	22627292.0 Ops/sec
getPrototypeOf	45547724.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

setPrototypeOf vs getPrototypeOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: setPrototypeOf vs getPrototypeOf

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

setPrototypeOf

getPrototypeOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):