Develop Reference

'marking' an object for garbage collection in NodeJS

I'm working with some code in NodeJS, and some objects (i.e, 'events') will be medium-lived, and then discarded.
I don't want them becoming a memory burden when I stop using them, and I want to know if there is a way to mark an object to be garbage-collected by the V8 engine. (or better yet- completely destroy the object on command)
I understand that garbage collection is automatic, but since these objects will, 60% of the time, outlive the young generation, I would like to make sure there is a way they don't camp out in the old-generation for a while after they are discarded, while avoiding the inefficiency of searching the entire thing.
I've looked around, and so far can't find anything in the NodeJS docs. I have two main questions:
Would this even be that good? Would it be worth it to be able to 'mark' large amounts of unused objects to be gc'ed? (possibly 100+ at a time)
Is there even a way to do this?
Anything (speculation, hints, articles) would be appreciated. Thanks!

(V8 developer here.) There's no way to do this, and you don't need to worry about it. Marking works the other way round: the GC finds and marks live objects. Dead objects are never marked, and there's no explicit act of destroying them. The GC never even looks at dead objects. Which also means that dead objects are not a burden.
"Garbage collector" really is a misleading term: it doesn't actually find or collect garbage; instead it finds non-garbage and keeps it, and everything it hasn't found it just ignores by assuming that the respective memory regions are free.
In theory, there could be a way to manually add (the memory previously occupied by) objects to the "free list"; but there's a fundamental problem with that: part of the point of automatic memory management is that automating it provides better security and stability than relying on manual memory management (with programmers being humans, and humans making mistakes). That means that by design, a GC can't trust anyone else to declare objects as unreachable; it would always insist on verifying that claim -- which is equivalent to disregarding it, as the only way to verify it is to run a full regular GC cycle.

JavaScript: performance constraints of `delete` keyword

I'm trying to better learn how JS works under the hood and I've heard in the past that the delete keyword (specifically node.js or browsers using V8) results in poor performance, so I want to see if I can figure out what the benefits/detriments are for using that keyword.
I believe the reasoning for not using delete is that removing a property leads to a rebuilding of hidden class transitions and thus a recompiling of the inline cache. However, I believe it is also true that the object prototype will no longer enumerate that property, so if the object is used heavily the upfront cost may eventually pay off.
So:
Are my assumptions about the tradeoffs correct?
If they are correct, is one factor more important than the other (e.g. is rebuilding the IC much more expensive than many prototype enumerations)?

V8 developer here. Short answer: "it depends".
Having an unused property doesn't hurt; there is no general "enumeration cost" unless you actually perform explicit enumerations. In other words, an "enumeration cost" only exists if you find yourself doing something like this:
for (var p in object) {
if (p === old_property_that_I_could_have_deleted) continue;
/* process other properties... */
}
The key reason why it's hard to give a concrete answer (or to provide a canonical example where an effect would be measurable) is because the effects are non-local: they depend both on what exactly you're doing with the object in question, and on what the rest of your app is doing. Deleting a property from one object may well cause operations on other objects to become slower. Or faster. It depends.
To take a step back and look at the high-level situation: JavaScript as a language sort of assumes that objects are represented as dictionaries. Deleting an entry in a dictionary should be perfectly fine, which is why it makes sense that the delete operator exists. In practice, it turns out that an engine can achieve huge performance improvements for read-heavy apps, which is by far the most common case, if it does not store objects as dictionaries, but instead more like something that resembles C/C++ structs. However, such an object representation is (1) generally hard/inefficient to do when properties get deleted, and (2) the engine may well interpret even the first deletion of a property as a hint that the programmer wants this particular object to behave like a dictionary, so it might switch the internal representation over. If a fast-to-modify dictionary is what you wanted, then that's fine (it will provide a benefit even); however if you wanted the object to remain in slow-to-modify/fast-to-read mode, you would perceive the transition to fast-to-modify/slow-to-read dictionary mode as a performance problem.
Thankfully there is a great solution nowadays: when you want a dictionary, use a Map or Set. Engines can (and usually will) assume that you'll want to delete entries from these, so the implementations are optimized for making that possible without negative side effects; in particular no hidden classes are involved.
A few remarks on your assumptions: deleting a property makes an object (mostly) leave the system of hidden class transitions, no transitions will be rebuilt. There is no single global "inline cache", there are many inline caches sprinkled all over your functions. They don't get rebuilt, they just transition to slower and slower modes the more different cases they have to handle. (That's generally how caching works: caching a single case provides huge speedups; on the other end of the scale if you have as many different cases as executions, then a cache just wastes time and memory without providing any benefit.) Again the effect of dictionary-mode objects depends on the overall situation: an inline cache dealing with (mostly) dictionary-mode objects typically exhibits performance somewhere in between (1) an inline cache that only has to deal with objects sharing the single same hidden class, and (2) an inline cache that has to deal with hundreds or thousands of different hidden classes.

Is having a nested function inside a constructor memory inefficient? [duplicate]

In JavaScript, we have two ways of making a "class" and giving it public functions.
Method 1:
function MyClass() {
var privateInstanceVariable = 'foo';
this.myFunc = function() { alert(privateInstanceVariable ); }
}
Method 2:
function MyClass() { }
MyClass.prototype.myFunc = function() {
alert("I can't use private instance variables. :(");
}
I've read numerous times people saying that using Method 2 is more efficient as all instances share the same copy of the function rather than each getting their own. Defining functions via the prototype has a huge disadvantage though - it makes it impossible to have private instance variables.
Even though, in theory, using Method 1 gives each instance of an object its own copy of the function (and thus uses way more memory, not to mention the time required for allocations) - is that what actually happens in practice? It seems like an optimization web browsers could easily make is to recognize this extremely common pattern, and actually have all instances of the object reference the same copy of functions defined via these "constructor functions". Then it could only give an instance its own copy of the function if it is explicitly changed later on.
Any insight - or, even better, real world experience - about performance differences between the two, would be extremely helpful.

See http://jsperf.com/prototype-vs-this
Declaring your methods via the prototype is faster, but whether or not this is relevant is debatable.
If you have a performance bottleneck in your app it is unlikely to be this, unless you happen to be instantiating 10000+ objects on every step of some arbitrary animation, for example.
If performance is a serious concern, and you'd like to micro-optimise, then I would suggest declaring via prototype. Otherwise, just use the pattern that makes most sense to you.
I'll add that, in JavaScript, there is a convention of prefixing properties that are intended to be seen as private with an underscore (e.g. _process()). Most developers will understand and avoid these properties, unless they're willing to forgo the social contract, but in that case you might as well not cater to them. What I mean to say is that: you probably don't really need true private variables...

In the new version of Chrome, this.method is about 20% faster than prototype.method, but creating new object is still slower.
If you can reuse the object instead of always creating an new one, this can be 50% - 90% faster than creating new objects. Plus the benefit of no garbage collection, which is huge:
http://jsperf.com/prototype-vs-this/59

It only makes a difference when you're creating lots of instances. Otherwise, the performance of calling the member function is exactly the same in both cases.
I've created a test case on jsperf to demonstrate this:
http://jsperf.com/prototype-vs-this/10

You might not have considered this, but putting the method directly on the object is actually better in one way:
Method invocations are very slightly faster (jsperf) since the prototype chain does not have to be consulted to resolve the method.
However, the speed difference is almost negligible. On top of that, putting a method on a prototype is better in two more impactful ways:
Faster to create instances (jsperf)
Uses less memory
Like James said, this difference can be important if you are instantiating thousands of instances of a class.
That said, I can certainly imagine a JavaScript engine that recognizes that the function you are attaching to each object does not change across instances and thus only keeps one copy of the function in memory, with all instance methods pointing to the shared function. In fact, it seems that Firefox is doing some special optimization like this but Chrome is not.
ASIDE:
You are right that it is impossible to access private instance variables from inside methods on prototypes. So I guess the question you must ask yourself is do you value being able to make instance variables truly private over utilizing inheritance and prototyping? I personally think that making variables truly private is not that important and would just use the underscore prefix (e.g., "this._myVar") to signify that although the variable is public, it should be considered to be private. That said, in ES6, there is apparently a way to have the both of both worlds!

You may use this approach and it will allow you to use prototype and access instance variables.
var Person = (function () {
function Person(age, name) {
this.age = age;
this.name = name;
}
Person.prototype.showDetails = function () {
alert('Age: ' + this.age + ' Name: ' + this.name);
};
return Person; // This is not referencing `var Person` but the Person function
}()); // See Note1 below
Note1:
The parenthesis will call the function (self invoking function) and assign the result to the var Person.
Usage
var p1 = new Person(40, 'George');
var p2 = new Person(55, 'Jerry');
p1.showDetails();
p2.showDetails();

In short, use method 2 for creating properties/methods that all instances will share. Those will be "global" and any change to it will be reflected across all instances. Use method 1 for creating instance specific properties/methods.
I wish I had a better reference but for now take a look at this. You can see how I used both methods in the same project for different purposes.
Hope this helps. :)

This answer should be considered an expansion of the rest of the answers filling in missing points. Both personal experience and benchmarks are incorporated.
As far as my experience goes, I use constructors to literally construct my objects religiously, whether methods are private or not. The main reason being that when I started that was the easiest immediate approach to me so it's not a special preference. It might have been as simple as that I like visible encapsulation and prototypes are a bit disembodied. My private methods will be assigned as variables in the scope as well. Although this is my habit and keeps things nicely self contained, it's not always the best habit and I do sometimes hit walls. Apart from wacky scenarios with highly dynamic self assembling according to configuration objects and code layout it tends to be the weaker approach in my opinion particularly if performance is a concern. Knowing that the internals are private is useful but you can achieve that via other means with the right discipline. Unless performance is a serious consideration, use whatever works best otherwise for the task at hand.
Using prototype inheritance and a convention to mark items as private does make debugging easier as you can then traverse the object graph easily from the console or debugger. On the other hand, such a convention makes obfuscation somewhat harder and makes it easier for others to bolt on their own scripts onto your site. This is one of the reasons the private scope approach gained popularity. It's not true security but instead adds resistance. Unfortunately a lot of people do still think it's a genuinely way to program secure JavaScript. Since debuggers have gotten really good, code obfuscation takes its place. If you're looking for security flaws where too much is on the client, it's a design pattern your might want to look out for.
A convention allows you to have protected properties with little fuss. That can be a blessing and a curse. It does ease some inheritance issues as it is less restrictive. You still do have the risk of collision or increased cognitive load in considering where else a property might be accessed. Self assembling objects let you do some strange things where you can get around a number of inheritance problems but they can be unconventional. My modules tend to have a rich inner structure where things don't get pulled out until the functionality is needed elsewhere (shared) or exposed unless needed externally. The constructor pattern tends to lead to creating self contained sophisticated modules more so than simply piecemeal objects. If you want that then it's fine. Otherwise if you want a more traditional OOP structure and layout then I would probably suggest regulating access by convention. In my usage scenarios complex OOP isn't often justified and modules do the trick.
All of the tests here are minimal. In real world usage it is likely that modules will be more complex making the hit a lot greater than tests here will indicate. It's quite common to have a private variable with multiple methods working on it and each of those methods will add more overhead on initialisation that you wont get with prototype inheritance. In most cases is doesn't matter because only a few instances of such objects float around although cumulatively it might add up.
There is an assumption that prototype methods are slower to call because of prototype lookup. It's not an unfair assumption, I made the same myself until I tested it. In reality it's complex and some tests suggest that aspect is trivial. Between, prototype.m = f, this.m = f and this.m = function... the latter performs significantly better than the first two which perform around the same. If the prototype lookup alone were a significant issue then the last two functions instead would out perform the first significantly. Instead something else strange is going on at least where Canary is concerned. It's possible functions are optimised according to what they are members of. A multitude of performance considerations come into play. You also have differences for parameter access and variable access.
Memory Capacity. It's not well discussed here. An assumption you can make up front that's likely to be true is that prototype inheritance will usually be far more memory efficient and according to my tests it is in general. When you build up your object in your constructor you can assume that each object will probably have its own instance of each function rather than shared, a larger property map for its own personal properties and likely some overhead to keep the constructor scope open as well. Functions that operate on the private scope are extremely and disproportionately demanding of memory. I find that in a lot of scenarios the proportionate difference in memory will be much more significant than the proportionate difference in CPU cycles.
Memory Graph. You also can jam up the engine making GC more expensive. Profilers do tend to show time spent in GC these days. It's not only a problem when it comes to allocating and freeing more. You'll also create a larger object graph to traverse and things like that so the GC consumes more cycles. If you create a million objects and then hardly touch them, depending on the engine it might turn out to have more of an ambient performance impact than you expected. I have proven that this does at least make the gc run for longer when objects are disposed of. That is there tends to be a correlation with memory used and the time it takes to GC. However there are cases where the time is the same regardless of the memory. This indicates that the graph makeup (layers of indirection, item count, etc) has more impact. That's not something that is always easy to predict.
Not many people use chained prototypes extensively, myself included I have to admit. Prototype chains can be expensive in theory. Someone will but I've not measured the cost. If you instead build your objects entirely in the constructor and then have a chain of inheritance as each constructor calls a parent constructor upon itself, in theory method access should be much faster. On the other hand you can accomplish the equivalent if it matters (such as flatten the prototypes down the ancestor chain) and you don't mind breaking things like hasOwnProperty, perhaps instanceof, etc if you really need it. In either case things start to get complex once you down this road when it comes to performance hacks. You'll probably end up doing things you shouldn't be doing.
Many people don't directly use either approach you've presented. Instead they make their own things using anonymous objects allowing method sharing any which way (mixins for example). There are a number of frameworks as well that implement their own strategies for organising modules and objects. These are heavily convention based custom approaches. For most people and for you your first challenge should be organisation rather than performance. This is often complicated in that Javascript gives many ways of achieving things versus languages or platforms with more explicit OOP/namespace/module support. When it comes to performance I would say instead to avoid major pitfalls first and foremost.
There's a new Symbol type that's supposed to work for private variables and methods. There are a number of ways to use this and it raises a host of questions related to performance and access. In my tests the performance of Symbols wasn't great compared to everything else but I never tested them thoroughly.
Disclaimers:
There are lots of discussions about performance and there isn't always a permanently correct answer for this as usage scenarios and engines change. Always profile but also always measure in more than one way as profiles aren't always accurate or reliable. Avoid significant effort into optimisation unless there's definitely a demonstrable problem.
It's probably better instead to include performance checks for sensitive areas in automated testing and to run when browsers update.
Remember sometimes battery life matters as well as perceptible performance. The slowest solution might turn out faster after running an optimising compiler on it (IE, a compiler might have a better idea of when restricted scope variables are accessed than properties marked as private by convention). Consider backend such as node.js. This can require better latency and throughput than you would often find on the browser. Most people wont need to worry about these things with something like validation for a registration form but the number of diverse scenarios where such things might matter is growing.
You have to be careful with memory allocation tracking tools in to persist the result. In some cases where I didn't return and persist the data it was optimised out entirely or the sample rate was not sufficient between instantiated/unreferenced, leaving me scratching my head as to how an array initialised and filled to a million registered as 3.4KiB in the allocation profile.
In the real world in most cases the only way to really optimise an application is to write it in the first place so you can measure it. There are dozens to hundreds of factors that can come into play if not thousands in any given scenario. Engines also do things that can lead to asymmetric or non-linear performance characteristics. If you define functions in a constructor, they might be arrow functions or traditional, each behaves differently in certain situations and I have no idea about the other function types. Classes also don't behave the same in terms as performance for prototyped constructors that should be equivalent. You need to be really careful with benchmarks as well. Prototyped classes can have deferred initialisation in various ways, especially if your prototyped your properties as well (advice, don't). This means that you can understate initialisation cost and overstate access/property mutation cost. I have also seen indications of progressive optimisation. In these cases I have filled a large array with instances of objects that are identical and as the number of instances increase the objects appear to be incrementally optimised for memory up to a point where the remainder is the same. It is also possible that those optimisations can also impact CPU performance significantly. These things are heavily dependent not merely on the code you write but what happens in runtime such as number of objects, variance between objects, etc.

Working with many Javascript functions

I'm currently working with a personal library that's accumulated quite a number of "helper" functions, which are used throughout my architecture for various purposes. Back when there were only a few of them, I kept them in a single file and object so I could access them like so:
tools.parseSomething(obj);
This has been terribly handy, and keeps the code still somewhat organised and readable. The problem is that the file (and object) containing these methods is growing to an enormous size, and needs a cleanup. I was considering creating separate files for "categories" of functions and placing them in those, so they'd be accessed like:
tools.env.getEnvironmentInfo();
My concern with this approach is not the readability so much, but the performance of the look-up. From what I've read recently, object look-ups are no longer the major bottle-neck they used to be, but I still want my library to be as efficient as possible (readability second).
I also considered having the separate files, but add all of the functions to the parent object so they're still accessible in the original way, but stored separately. The object containing the functions is "static" and exists as a single instance.
My question is, with regards to what I've explained, what would be the most efficient method of storing and using a large amount of helper functions? By efficiency I mean performance, which is the sole area of concern for me at the moment.

I'd agree that premature optimization is going on here, however that wasn't your question.
I'd assert that instead of thinking in terms of loosely related scriptlets that 'do kind of related things', I'd suggest an richer object model that can be stateful and perhaps expose the behaviors you need while hiding some optimizations you feel are necessary like caching lookups, etc.
So instead of getEnvironmentInfo, why not have an Environment instance that has, for example, already fetched some parameters and stored internally so subsequent calls are made faster. From there you can create new environments or whatever other behaviors suit you.
This is just good programming practice in whatever language.

Why is caching values in objects taking more time?

As I have learnt, its better to cache the values in objects which we need repeatedly. For example, doing
var currentObj = myobject.myinnerobj.innermostobj[i]
and using 'currentObj' for further operations is better for performance than just
myobject.myinnerobj.innermostobj[i]
everywhere, like say in loops.. I am told it saves the script from looking-up inside the objects every time..
I have around 1000 lines of code, the only change I did to it with the intention of improving performance is this (at many locations) and the total time taken to execute it increased from 190ms to 230ms. Both times were checked using firebug 1.7 on Firefox 4.
Is what I learnt true (meaning either I am overusing it or mis-implemented it)? Or are there any other aspects to it that I am unaware of..?

There is an initial cost for creating the variable, so you have to use the variable a few times (depending on the complexity of the lookup, and many other things) before you see any performance gain.
Also, how Javascript is executed has changed quite a bit in only a few years. Nowadays most browsers compile the code in some form, which changes what's performant and what's not. It's likely that the perforance gain from caching reference is less now than when the advice was written.

The example you have given appears to simply be Javascript, not jQuery. Since you are using direct object property references and array indices to existing Javascript objects, there is no lookup involved. So in your case, adding var currentObj... could potentially increase overhead by the small amount needed to instantiate currentObj. Though this is likely very minor, and not uncommon for convenience and readability in code, in a long loop, you could possibly see the difference when timing it.
The caching you are probably thinking of has to do with jQuery objects, e.g.
var currentObj = $('some_selector');
Running a jQuery selector involves a significant amount of processing because it must look through the entire DOM (or some subset of it) to resolve the selector. So doing this, versus running the selector each time you refer to something, can indeed save a lot of overhead. But that's not what you're doing in your example.
See this fiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/SGqGu/7/
In firefox and chrome (didn't test IE) -- the time is identical in pretty much any scenario.

Is what I learnt true (meaning either
I am overusing it or mis-implemented
it)? Or are there any other aspects to
it that I am unaware of..?
It's not obvious if either is the case because you didn't post a link to your code.
I think most of your confusion comes from the fact that JavaScript developers are mainly concerned with caching DOM objects. DOM object lookups are substantially more expensive than looking up something like myobj.something.something2. I'd hazard a guess that most of what you've been reading about the importance of caching are examples like this (since you mentioned jQuery):
var myButton = $('#my_button');
In such cases, caching the DOM references can pay dividends in speed on pages with a complex DOM. With your example, it'd probably just reduce the readability of the code by making you have to remember that currentObj is just an alias to another object. In a loop, that'd make sense, but elsewhere, it wouldn't be worth having another variable to remember.