Benchmark: destructure vs property access

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array(75613);
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
  a[i] = { n: i, v: Math.random() };
}

Tests:

destructure
var b = a.filter(({v}) => v <= 0.5); return b.length;
property access
var c = a.filter(it => it.v <= 0.5); return c.length;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
destructure
property access

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 provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array: destructuring and property access. The input data is an array of 75,613 objects, each with `n` and `v` properties.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a large array of objects using the following code:
```javascript
var a = Array(75613);
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
  a[i] = { n: i, v: Math.random() };
}
```
This code generates an array with 75,613 objects, where each object has `n` and `v` properties.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. **Destructuring**: The first test case uses destructuring to filter the array:
```javascript
var b = a.filter(({v}) => v <= 0.5);
return b.length;
```
This code uses an arrow function with destructuring syntax to extract the `v` property from each object in the array and filters the array based on the condition `v <= 0.5`.

2. **Property Access**: The second test case uses property access to filter the array:
```javascript
var c = a.filter(it => it.v <= 0.5);
return c.length;
```
This code uses an arrow function with property access syntax to extract the `v` property from each object in the array and filters the array based on the condition `it.v <= 0.5`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Destructuring**: The destructuring approach is generally faster because it avoids the overhead of invoking a function or accessing a property through an object.
	* Pros: Faster, more concise syntax.
	* Cons: Can be less readable for complex conditions, may not work with all data types.
2. **Property Access**: The property access approach is often considered more readable and flexible than destructuring.
	* Pros: More readable, can handle complex conditions, works with any data type.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of accessing a property.

**Library and Purpose**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in using a library for filtering arrays, some popular options include:

1. `filter()` method ( native JavaScript ): A simple and efficient way to filter arrays.
2. `Lodash.filter()` : A utility function from the Lodash library that provides additional features and options for filtering arrays.
3. `Array.prototype.some()` or `Array.prototype.every()` : Methods that can be used for filtering arrays, but may not provide the same level of control as a custom function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and features, including arrow functions, destructuring, and property access.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for filtering arrays, some options include:

1. `Array.prototype.some()` or `Array.prototype.every()`: Methods that can be used for filtering arrays.
2. Custom function with a loop: You could write a custom function using a loop to iterate over the array and filter it based on your criteria.
3. A library like Lodash, which provides additional features and options for filtering arrays.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches to filtering an array: destructuring and property access. The destructuring approach is generally faster but may be less readable, while the property access approach is often more readable but may be slower due to overhead.

Related benchmarks:

destructure vs property access (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: destructure vs property access

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

destructure

property access

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):