Benchmark: Loop cache size - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

No Cache
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; for (let i = 0; i < arr.size; i++) { console.log(arr[i]); }
Cache
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; const size = arr.size; for (let i = 0; i < size; i++) { console.log(arr[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
No Cache
Cache

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which compares two approaches to accessing an array: with caching (reusing the previous size of the array) and without caching (reading the size each time).

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is empty, but we can infer that it's intended to be a base for various test cases. In this case, we have only two individual test cases.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **No Cache**: This test case has a benchmark definition that uses a traditional `for` loop with indexing (`arr[i]`). The size of the array is accessed directly in the loop condition.
2. **Cache**: This test case has a benchmark definition that uses a variable to store the size of the array before the loop, and then accesses it again inside the loop.

**Approaches Compared**

The two approaches compared are:

* **No Cache (Traditional Indexing)**: Accesses the array using indexing (`arr[i]`) in each iteration. This approach involves calculating the index every time, which can lead to performance issues.
* **Cache (Storing Size Before Loop)**: Stores the size of the array in a variable before the loop and reuses it inside the loop. This approach can potentially improve performance by reducing the number of calculations.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros of **No Cache**:

* Simple and easy to implement
* No need to store additional data (size variable)

Cons of **No Cache**:

* Inefficient due to repeated index calculations
* May lead to slower performance

Pros of **Cache**:

* Reuses the size calculation, reducing overhead
* Can potentially improve performance

Cons of **Cache**:

* Requires storing an additional piece of data (size variable)
* May lead to increased memory usage if not optimized carefully

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, there are no libraries or special JavaScript features explicitly mentioned. However, the use of `const` variables (`arr` and `size`) indicates that modern JavaScript syntax is being used.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could be:

* **Pre-calculating a fixed-size array**: If the size of the array is known beforehand, pre-calculating it before the loop can reduce performance issues.
* **Using a data structure with built-in indexing**: Some data structures, like arrays or linked lists, have optimized indexing mechanisms that can improve performance.

Keep in mind that the specific approach used will depend on the requirements and constraints of the project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
No Cache	1084930304.0 Ops/sec
Cache	1084880896.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Loop cache size (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No Cache vs Cache

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

No Cache

Cache

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):