Benchmark: assign after allocate object vs re-use object

Script Preparation code:

var reused = {
	color: [1, 1, 1, 1],
  	position: [1, 1],
};

var map = new Map();
for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i += 1) {
	map.set(`${i}`, {
	  color: [1, 1, 1, 1],
	  position: [1, 1],
      size: 99, // dummy key
	});  
}

Tests:

allocate
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i += 1) { const target = map.get(`${i}`); Object.assign(target, { color: [i, i, i, i], position: [i, i], }); }
reuse
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i += 1) { const target = map.get(`${i}`); reused = { color: [i, i, i, i], position: [i, i], }; Object.assign(target, reused); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
allocate
reuse

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance of two different methods for updating objects in JavaScript: allocating a new object each time or reusing an existing one.

**Options Compared:**

* **`allocate`**:  For each iteration, a new object is created and assigned to the `target` variable using `Object.assign`. This method involves creating new memory allocations for every update.
* **`reuse`**: An existing object `reused` is created beforehand and its properties are updated each iteration. Then, these changes are applied to the `target` object using `Object.assign`. This approach reuses an existing object structure, avoiding repeated memory allocation.

**Pros/Cons:**

* **`allocate`**: 
    *  **Con**: More resource-intensive due to constant object creation and garbage collection. 
    *  **Potential Pro**: Simpler in terms of code logic if the properties being updated are completely different each time.
* **`reuse`**:
    *  **Pro**: Potentially faster because memory allocation is avoided. Existing objects can be efficiently modified instead of creating new ones. 
    * **Con**: Can become more complex to manage if the `reused` object's state needs to be cleared or reset frequently.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Object Size**: The performance difference between these methods might be less noticeable for very small objects. 
* **Frequency of Updates**: If updates happen very frequently, the overhead of `allocate` can become significant.

**Alternatives:**

* **Immutability**: Consider using immutable data structures where changes create new objects instead of modifying existing ones. This can lead to more predictable behavior but might require different design patterns.
* **Object Pooling**: Create a pool of reusable objects and retrieve/return them when needed. This can be efficient for scenarios with frequent object creation and destruction.

Let me know if you have any further questions!

Related benchmarks:

assign after allocate object vs re-use object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: allocate vs reuse

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

allocate

reuse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):