In javascript, is accessing 'window.Math' slower or faster than accessing the 'Math' object without the 'window.'?
I'm kind of curious about what the best practice is when referencing the 'global' namespace in javascript, which is merely a shortcut to the window object (or vice versia depending on how you look at it).
I want to know if:
var answer = Math.floor(value);
is better or worse than:
var answer = window.Math.floor(value);
Is one better or worse, even slightly, for 开发者_高级运维performance, resource usage, or compatibility?
Does one have a slighter higher cost? (Something like an extra pointer or something)
Edit note: While I am a readability over performance nazi in most situations, in this case I am ignoring the differences in readability to focus solely on performance.
First of all, never compare things like these for performance reasons. Math.round is obviously easier on the eyes than window.Math.round, and you wouldn't see a noticeable performance increase by using one or the other. So don't obfuscate your code for very slight performance increases.
However, if you're just curious about which one is faster... I'm not sure how the global scope is looked up "under the hood", but I would guess that accessing window is just the same as accessing Math (window and Math live on the same level, as evidenced by window.window.window.Math.round working). Thus, accessing window.Math would be slower.
Also, the way variables are looked up, you would see a performance increase by doing var round = Math.round; and calling round(1.23), since all names are first looked up in the current local scope, then the scope above the current one, and so on, all the way up to the global scope. Every scope level adds a very slight overhead.
But again, don't do these optimizations unless you're sure they will make a noticeable difference. Readable, understandable code is important for it to work the way it should, now and in the future.
Here's a full profiling using Firebug:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Benchmark scope lookup</title>
</head>
<body>
<script>
function bench_window_Math_round() {
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
window.Math.round(1.23);
}
}
function bench_Math_round() {
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
Math.round(1.23);
}
}
function bench_round() {
for (var i = 0, round = Math.round; i < 100000; i++) {
round(1.23);
}
}
console.log('Profiling will begin in 3 seconds...');
setTimeout(function () {
console.profile();
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
bench_window_Math_round();
bench_Math_round();
bench_round();
}
console.profileEnd();
}, 3000);
</script>
</body>
</html>
My results:
Time shows total for 100,000 * 10 calls, Avg/Min/Max show time for 100,000 calls.
Calls Percent Own Time Time Avg Min Max
bench_window_Math_round
10 86.36% 1114.73ms 1114.73ms 111.473ms 110.827ms 114.018ms
bench_Math_round
10 8.21% 106.04ms 106.04ms 10.604ms 10.252ms 13.446ms
bench_round
10 5.43% 70.08ms 70.08ms 7.008ms 6.884ms 7.092ms
As you can see, window.Math is a really bad idea. I guess accessing the global window object adds additional overhead. However, the difference between accessing the Math object from the global scope, and just accessing a local variable with a reference to the Math.round function isn't very great... Keep in mind that this is 100,000 calls, and the difference is only 3.6ms. Even with one million calls you'd only see a 36ms difference.
Things to think about with the above profiling code:
- The functions are actually looked up from another scope, which adds overhead (barely noticable though, I tried importing the functions into the anonymous function).
- The actual
Math.roundfunction adds overhead (I'm guessing about 6ms in 100,000 calls).
This can be an interest question if you want to know how the Scope Chain and the Identifier Resolution process works.
The scope chain is a list of objects that are searched when evaluating an identifier, those objects are not accessible by code, only its properties (identifiers) can be accessed.
At first, in global code, the scope chain is created and initialised to contain only the global object.
The subsequent objects in the chain are created when you enter in function execution context and by the with statement and catch clause, both also introduce objects into the chain.
For example:
// global code
var var1 = 1, var2 = 2;
(function () { // one
var var3 = 3;
(function () { // two
var var4 = 4;
with ({var5: 5}) { // three
alert(var1);
}
})();
})();
In the above code, the scope chain will contain different objects in different levels, for example, at the lowest level, within the with statement, if you use the var1 or var2 variables, the scope chain will contain 4 objects that will be needed to inspect in order to get that identifier: the one introduced by the with statement, the two functions, and finally the global object.
You also need to know that window is just a property that exists in the global object and it points to the global object itself. window is introduced by browsers, and in other environments often it isn't available.
In conclusion, when you use window, since it is just an identifier (is not a reserved word or anything like that) and it needs to pass all the resolution process in order to get the global object, window.Math needs an additional step that is made by the dot (.) property accessor.
JS performance differs widely from browser to browser.
My advice: benchmark it. Just put it in a for loop, let it run a few million times, and time it.... see what you get. Be sure to share your results!
(As you've said) Math.floor will probably just be a shortcut for window.Math (as window is a Javascript global object) in most Javascript implementations such as V8.
Spidermonkey and V8 will be so heavily optimised for common usage that it shouldn't be a concern.
For readability my preference would be to use Math.floor, the difference in speed will be so insignificant it's not worth worrying about ever. If you're doing a 100,000 floors it's probably time to switch that logic out of the client.
You may want to have a nose around the v8 source there's some interesting comments there about shaving nanoseconds off functions such as this int.Parse() one.
// Some people use parseInt instead of Math.floor. This
// optimization makes parseInt on a Smi 12 times faster (60ns
// vs 800ns). The following optimization makes parseInt on a
// non-Smi number 9 times faster (230ns vs 2070ns). Together
// they make parseInt on a string 1.4% slower (274ns vs 270ns).
As far as I understand JavaScript logic, everything you refer to as something is searched in the global variable scope. In browser implementations, the window object is the global object. Hence, when you are asking for window.Math you actually have to de-reference what window means, then get its properties and find Math there. If you simply ask for Math, the first place where it is sought, is the global object.
So, yes- calling Math.something will be faster than window.Math.something.
D. Crockeford talks about it in his lecture http://video.yahoo.com/watch/111593/1710507, as far as I recall, it's in the 3rd part of the video.
If Math.round() is being called in a local/function scope the interpreter is going to have to check first for a local var then in the global/window space. So in local scope my guess would be that window.Math.round() would be very slightly faster. This isn't assembly, or C or C++, so I wouldn't worry about which is faster for performance reasons, but if out of curiosity, sure, benchmark it.
加载中,请稍侯......
精彩评论