Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
dfgdsfg
(version: 0)
dsfgds
Comparing performance of:
aaa vs bb
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
aaa
let obj = {} for(i=0; i<10000; i++){ let v = { g: `${i}`, v: i }; obj = { ...obj, i: v}; } let newObj = { ...obj, foo: 'bar' }
bb
let obj = {} for(i=0; i<10000; i++){ obj[i] = { g: `${i}`, v: i }; } let newObj = { ...obj, foo: 'bar' }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
aaa
bb
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'd be happy to explain the benchmark being tested. **Benchmark Test** The test measures the performance of two JavaScript microbenchmarks, each involving a loop that creates an object with properties. The benchmarks are designed to compare different approaches to achieving this goal. **Options Compared** Two main options are compared: 1. **Object Destructuring with Spread Operator**: In the first benchmark (`aaa`), an object `obj` is initialized and then updated using the spread operator (`{ ...obj, i: v }`). This approach creates a new object by copying the existing properties of `obj` and adding a new property `i`. 2. **Indexed Property Access**: In the second benchmark (`bb`), an object `obj` is initialized with indexed properties (`obj[i]`) that are updated in each iteration of the loop. This approach assigns values to specific indices of the object, rather than using object destructuring. **Pros and Cons** **Object Destructuring with Spread Operator:** Pros: * More concise and readable code * Reduces memory allocation for a new object * Can be faster for small objects Cons: * May incur overhead due to function call and property lookup * Requires JavaScript version support (ECMAScript 2018+) **Indexed Property Access:** Pros: * Generally faster and more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new object * Works with older JavaScript versions (pre-ECMAScript 2018) Cons: * Code can be less readable and more verbose * Requires manual memory management **Other Considerations** The test also considers the device platform (Desktop), browser version (Chrome 100), operating system (Mac OS X 10.15.7), and number of executions per second. **Library/External Feature Use** Neither benchmark uses any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the standard ECMAScript syntax. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** None are used in these benchmarks. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for achieving this goal include: * Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` to accumulate properties into an object * Utilizing a library like Lodash, which provides functions for creating and manipulating objects (e.g., `_.assign()`) * Employing other JavaScript engines or transpilers that support specific syntax or optimizations Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.
Related benchmarks:
slug5573
slug5573
Multiple Attributes II
Multiple Attributes III
dfjf2hdshsdrh
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?