Benchmark: Destructuring - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = {
    deals: {
        name: 'Deals Name'
    }
}

Tests:

Test
let { deals : { name } } = data; console.log(name)
Test 2
console.log(data?.deals?.name)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test
Test 2

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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches for accessing nested object properties in JavaScript. Specifically, it tests the speed of destructuring assignments versus property access with optional chaining (`?.`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a sample JSON object called `data`, which contains another object called `deals`. The `deals` object has a single property called `name`.

```javascript
var data = {
    deals: {
        name: 'Deals Name'
    }
};
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, so we can assume that the benchmark is focused solely on JavaScript performance.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. `Test`: This test uses a destructuring assignment to extract the `name` property from the `deals` object.
```javascript
let { deals: { name } } = data;
console.log(name);
```

2. `Test 2`: This test uses optional chaining (`?.`) to access the `name` property, which is only defined if it exists in the `data.deals` object.
```javascript
console.log(data?.deals?.name);
```

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared as follows:

* **Destructuring assignment**: This method creates a new object with the desired properties and assigns them to local variables. It's a more explicit and readable way of accessing nested object properties.
* **Optional chaining (`?.`)**: This method uses the optional chaining operator to access nested object properties in a single expression. It's a concise way to avoid null reference errors, but it may have performance implications depending on the browser.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Destructuring assignment**

Pros:

* More explicit and readable
* Can be more efficient since it avoids optional chaining

Cons:

* May create temporary objects with properties, which can affect memory usage
* Requires careful handling of object property names to avoid errors

**Optional chaining (`?.`)**

Pros:

* Concise and expressive syntax
* Avoids null reference errors by using the safe navigation operator

Cons:

* May have performance implications depending on the browser
* Can be less readable if not used carefully, as it can lead to confusing expressions.

**Library/JS Feature**

In this benchmark, we don't see any specific libraries being used. However, the use of optional chaining (`?.`) is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES2020) standard.

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Reproducibility**: Ensure that the benchmark can be run multiple times with consistent results.
* **Consistency**: Run the benchmark on different devices and browsers to ensure consistency across platforms.
* **Memory usage**: Be mindful of memory usage when running large datasets or benchmarks.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

* Google's Benchmark library
* The WebAssembly (WASM) benchmarking framework
* The V8 JavaScript engine's built-in benchmarking tools

Keep in mind that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on your specific needs and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Destructuring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test vs Test 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test

Test 2

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):