Javascript prototype operator performance: saves m

Question

I read here (Douglas Crockford) using prototype operator to add methods to Javascript classes saves also memory.

Then I read in this John Resig's article "Instantiating a function with a bunch of prototype properties is very, very, fast", but is he talking about using prototype in the standard way, or is he talking about his specific example in his article?

For example, is creating this object:

function Class1()
{
   this.showMsg = function(string) { alert(string); }
}
var c = new Class1();
c.showMsg();

slower than creating this object, then?

function Class1() {}
Class1.prototype.showMsg = function(string) { alert(string); }
var c = new Class1();
c.showMsg();

P.S.

I know prototype is used to create inheritance and singleton object etc. But this question does not have anyhting to do with these subjects.

---

EDIT: to whom it might be interested also in performance comparison between a JS object and a JS static objet can read this answer below. Static object are definitely faster, obviously they can be usued only when you don't need more than one instance of the object.

Answer 1

So I decided to test this as well. I tested creation time, execution time, and memory use. I used Nodejs v0.8.12 and the mocha test framework running on a Mac Book Pro booted into Windows 7. The 'fast' results are using prototypes and the 'slow' ones are using module pattern. I created 1 million of each type of object and then accessed the 4 methods in each object. Here are the results:

c:\ABoxAbove>mocha test/test_andrew.js

Fast Allocation took:170 msec
·Fast Access took:826 msec
state[0] = First0
Free Memory:5006495744

·Slow Allocation took:999 msec
·Slow Access took:599 msec
state[0] = First0
Free Memory:4639649792

Mem diff:358248k
Mem overhead per obj:366.845952bytes

? 4 tests complete (2.6 seconds)

The code is as follows:

var assert = require("assert"), os = require('os');

function Fast (){}
Fast.prototype = {
    state:"",
    getState:function (){return this.state;},
    setState:function (_state){this.state = _state;},
    name:"",
    getName:function (){return this.name;},
    setName:function (_name){this.name = _name;}
};

function Slow (){
    var state, name;
    return{
        getState:function (){return this.state;},
        setState:function (_state){this.state = _state;},
        getName:function (){return this.name;},
        setName:function (_name){this.name = _name;}
    };
}
describe('test supposed fast prototype', function(){
    var count = 1000000, i, objs = [count], state = "First", name="Test";
    var ts, diff, mem;
    it ('should allocate a bunch of objects quickly', function (done){
        ts = Date.now ();
        for (i = 0; i < count; ++i){objs[i] = new Fast ();}
        diff = Date.now () - ts;
        console.log ("Fast Allocation took:%d msec", diff);
        done ();
    });
    it ('should access a bunch of objects quickly', function (done){
        ts = Date.now ();
        for (i = 0; i < count; ++i){
            objs[i].setState (state + i);
            assert (objs[i].getState () === state + i, "States should be equal");
            objs[i].setName (name + i);
            assert (objs[i].getName () === name + i, "Names should be equal");
        }
        diff = Date.now() - ts;
        console.log ("Fast Access took:%d msec", diff);
        console.log ("state[0] = " + objs[0].getState ());
        mem = os.freemem();
        console.log ("Free Memory:" + mem + "\n");
        done ();
    });
    it ('should allocate a bunch of objects slowly', function (done){
        ts = Date.now ();
        for (i = 0; i < count; ++i){objs[i] = Slow ();}
        diff = Date.now() - ts;
        console.log ("Slow Allocation took:%d msec", diff);
        done ();
    });
    it ('should access a bunch of objects slowly', function (done){
        ts = Date.now ();
        for (i = 0; i < count; ++i){
            objs[i].setState (state + i);
            assert (objs[i].getState () === state + i, "States should be equal");
            objs[i].setName (name + i);
            assert (objs[i].getName () === name + i, "Names should be equal");
        }
        diff = Date.now() - ts;
        console.log ("Slow Access took:%d msec", diff);
        console.log ("state[0] = " + objs[0].getState ());
        var mem2 = os.freemem();
        console.log ("Free Memory:" + mem2 + "\n");
        console.log ("Mem diff:" + (mem - mem2) / 1024 + "k");
        console.log ("Mem overhead per obj:" + (mem - mem2) / count + 'bytes');
        done ();
    });
});

Conclusion: This backs up what others in this post have found. If you are constantly creating objects then the prototype mechanism is clearly faster. If your code spends most of its time accessing objects then the module pattern is faster. If you are sensitive about memory use, the prototype mechanism uses ~360 bytes less per object.

Answer 2

I would guess that it depends on the type of object you want to create. I ran a similar test as Andrew, but with a static object, and the static object won hands down. Here's the test:

var X,Y,Z,x,y,z;

X = function() {};
X.prototype.message = function(s) { var mymessage = s + "";}
X.prototype.addition = function(i,j) { return (i *2 + j * 2) / 2; }

Y = function() {
    this.message = function(s) { var mymessage = s + "";}
    this.addition = function(i,j) { return (i *2 + j * 2) / 2; }
};

Z = {
 message: function(s) { var mymessage = s + "";}
 ,addition: function(i,j) { return (i *2 + j * 2) / 2; }
}

function TestPerformance()
{
  var closureStartDateTime = new Date();
  for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
  {
 y = new Y();
    y.message('hi');
    y.addition(i,2);
  }
  var closureEndDateTime = new Date();

  var prototypeStartDateTime = new Date();
  for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
  {
    x = new X();
    x.message('hi');
    x.addition(i,2);
  }
  var prototypeEndDateTime = new Date();

  var staticObjectStartDateTime = new Date();
  for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
  {
 z = Z; // obviously you don't really need this
    z.message('hi');
    z.addition(i,2);
  }
  var staticObjectEndDateTime = new Date();
  var closureTime = closureEndDateTime.getTime() - closureStartDateTime.getTime();
  var prototypeTime = prototypeEndDateTime.getTime() - prototypeStartDateTime.getTime();
  var staticTime = staticObjectEndDateTime.getTime() - staticObjectStartDateTime.getTime();
  console.log("Closure time: " + closureTime + ", prototype time: " + prototypeTime + ", static object time: " + staticTime);
}

TestPerformance();

This test is a modification of code I found at:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kristoffer/archive/2007/02/13/javascript-prototype-versus-closure-execution-speed.aspx

Results:

IE6: closure time: 1062, prototype time: 766, static object time: 406

IE8: closure time: 781, prototype time: 406, static object time: 188

FF: closure time: 233, prototype time: 141, static object time: 94

Safari: closure time: 152, prototype time: 12, static object time: 6

Chrome: closure time: 13, prototype time: 8, static object time: 3

The lesson learned is that if you DON'T have a need to instantiate many different objects from the same class, then creating it as a static object wins hands down. So think carefully about what kind of class you really need.

Answer 3

I'm sure that as far as instantiating the object goes, it's way faster and also consumes less memory, no doubts about that, but I would think that the javascript engine needs to loop through all the properties of the object to determine if the property/method invoked is part of that object and if not, then go check for the prototype. I am not 100% sure about this but I'm assuming that's how it works and if so, then in SOME cases where your object has a LOT of methods added to it, instantiated only once and used heavily, then it could possibly be a little slower, but that's just a supposition I haven't tested anything.

But in the end, I would still agree that as a general rules, using prototype will be faster.