Benchmark: Object.create(null) vs Object literal - Creation and Iteration Performance

Tests:

Object.create
const object = Object.create(null); object.a = 1; object.b = 2; object.c = 3; object.d = 4; object.e = 5; object.f = 6; let sum = 0; for (const key in object) { sum += object[key]; }
Object literal
const object = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4, e: 5, f: 6}; let sum = 0; for (const key in object) { if (object.hasOwnProperty(key)) { sum += object[key]; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create
Object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.create	3408557.0 Ops/sec
Object literal	68409656.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform for comparing the performance of different JavaScript approaches, including object creation methods (Object.create and literal syntax). We'll dive into what's being tested, compare options, discuss pros and cons, and explore other alternatives.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition json provides two test cases:

1. **Object.create**: Creates an object using `Object.create(null)`, sets its properties, and then iterates over the object to sum up its values.
2. **Object literal**: Creates an object using the literal syntax (e.g., `{ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, ... }`), sets its properties, and then iterates over the object to sum up its values.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* `Object.create(null)`: This method creates an empty object without any prototype chain. It's used to create objects with no inherited properties.
* Object literal syntax: This is a shorthand way of creating objects using curly brackets `{ ... }`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Object.create**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of property lookup (via `in` operator).
* Allows for more control over object creation and manipulation.

Cons:

* Requires a null object reference, which might not be immediately clear to some developers.
* The `null` prototype can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled properly.

**Object Literal Syntax**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code.
* Easier to understand and maintain for most developers.

Cons:

* Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of property lookup (via `in` operator).
* Less control over object creation and manipulation.

**Library and Special JS Features Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) might use some internal optimizations or caching mechanisms that could impact performance.

**Other Considerations**

* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value indicates how many iterations of the benchmark were executed per second on a specific device.
* This benchmark focuses on object creation and iteration performance. Other factors, like memory usage or garbage collection, are not being compared.

**Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore similar benchmarks or compare different JavaScript approaches, consider checking out:

* JS Bench (formerly jsperf): A popular platform for comparing JavaScript performance.
* Benchmarking libraries like micro-benchmark or benchmark.js: Tools designed specifically for writing and running JavaScript benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

Object.create(null) vs Object literal - Creation and Iteration Performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.create vs Object literal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create

Object literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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