Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null)

Tests:

Object.create(null)
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = Object.create(null) o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( o ) }
object literal
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = { x: 'a string' } o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( o ) }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 28 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 22 runs

object literal

10K/s

Object.create(null)

1K/s

Fastest: object literal (9.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ object literal: 10,005 ops/sec
• Object.create(null): 1,038 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

Object.create(null)

5K/s

object literal

4K/s

Fastest: Object.create(null) (1.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Object.create(null): 5,108 ops/sec
• object literal: 4,072 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create(null)
object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

object literal

19K/s

Object.create(null)

3K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ object literal	18,808 Ops/sec
Object.create(null)	3,251 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance is crucial in software development, and benchmarking is an essential tool to compare the efficiency of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two methods for creating non-empty objects: using object literals (`const o = { x: 'a string' }`) versus `Object.create(null)`.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark is designed to measure the time taken by each approach to create and initialize 10,000 objects with specific properties. The options being compared are:

1. **Object Literal**: Using curly braces `{}` to create a new object with initial properties (`x: 'a string'`, `y: 17`, and `z: { m: 'an object', n: 97 }`).
2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create()` method without any prototype, creating an empty object and then assigning properties to it.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Object Literal**:
    *   Pros: Easier to read and write, more intuitive for developers who are familiar with objects in JavaScript.
    *   Cons: Creates a new object instance every time, which can lead to increased memory usage and slower performance due to the overhead of creating a new object.
*   **Object.create(null)**:
    *   Pros: More memory-efficient as it reuses the same object instance, reducing memory allocation and deallocation overhead. Also, creates an empty object that can be used as a prototype for other objects, which might lead to better performance in some cases.
    *   Cons: Less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with `Object.create()`, and may lead to slower performance due to the need to access properties on an object that has no prototype.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no explicitly mentioned library. However, if we consider the context of creating objects in JavaScript, some libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js might be used for similar operations. But in this specific case, it's just basic JavaScript features being compared.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There are a few special aspects to note:

*   The use of template literals (`"a string"`), which is supported by modern JavaScript engines.
*   The use of arrow functions (`() => {...}`) or function expressions (`function () {...}`) for creating the object's `z` property. In this benchmark, it seems like an arrow function is used.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to measure performance in JavaScript might include:

*   Using a framework like React or Angular that provides optimized rendering and update mechanisms.
*   Utilizing Web Workers for parallel processing of computationally intensive tasks.
*   Leveraging native browser APIs or libraries like WebAssembly for improved performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Object literal vs Object.create(null) (version: 0) Benchmark.js

compare performance of object creating non-empty objects using object literal vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: `Object.create(null) vs object literal`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Object.create(null)

object literal

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 28 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 22 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Object literal vs Object.create(null) (version: 0) Benchmark.js

compare performance of object creating non-empty objects using object literal vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: Object.create(null) vs object literal

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Object.create(null)

object literal

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 28 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 22 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Object.create(null) vs object literal`