Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Object assign vs empty obj
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Normal object vs Object assign
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Normal object
const obj = {}
Object assign
const obj = Object.assign({})
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Normal object
Object assign
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark test cases and explain what's being tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations. **Benchmark Test Cases:** The benchmark tests two ways to create an empty object in JavaScript: 1. **Normal Object**: `const obj = {}` 2. **Object Assign**: `const obj = Object.assign({})` **What's Being Tested:** The benchmark is testing the performance difference between these two approaches. **Approach 1: Normal Object (`const obj = {}`)** This approach creates an empty object using literal syntax. The pros are: * Simple and concise code * Wide browser support (not specific to any particular library or standard) However, this approach may have a slight performance penalty due to the need for the JavaScript engine to parse and evaluate the expression. **Approach 2: Object Assign (`const obj = Object.assign({})`)** This approach uses the `Object.assign()` method to create an empty object. The pros are: * Efficient use of memory, as it avoids creating a new object with unnecessary properties * Can be faster than literal syntax for large objects or complex scenarios However, this approach has some cons: * Requires the presence of the `Object` global variable (which is widely supported) and the `assign()` method implementation in the browser's JavaScript engine. * May have a slightly higher overhead due to the need to call the `assign()` method. **Other Considerations:** * **Function Call vs. Literal Syntax**: Both approaches involve creating an object or setting properties on an existing object. However, literal syntax can be faster and more memory-efficient for simple cases. * **Browser Support**: The benchmark is running in Chrome 88, which supports both `Object.assign()` and literal syntax. * **Memory Allocation**: Both approaches allocate memory for the object. However, Object Assign may use less memory due to its efficient implementation. **Library or Special JS Feature:** In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used, but rather built-in JavaScript features. **Test Case Special JS Features: None** The test cases are simple and do not include any special JavaScript features, such as async/await, promises, or modern ES6+ syntax. **Alternative Approaches:** Other alternatives to these approaches include: * Using the `Object.create()` method with an empty object as its prototype. * Utilizing the `Map` constructor (if available) to create a lightweight key-value store. * Implementing a custom `EmptyObject` class or function for efficient memory allocation and access. Keep in mind that the chosen approach may depend on specific requirements, such as performance, code readability, or browser compatibility.
Related benchmarks:
Object.assign vs direct copy
Object.assign() vs Reflect.set()
Spread vs Assign benchmark
Spread vs Assign benchmark 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?