Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
,mcv,bmcvbm
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
assign vs object
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
assign
let cookies = Math.random() < 0.5 ? "sdfsdfsdfsddf" : ""; let headers = Object.assign({}, cookies ? { Cookie: cookies } : {});
object
let cookies = Math.random() < 0.5 ? "sdfsdfsdfsddf" : ""; let headers = cookies ? { Cookie: cookies } : {};
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
assign
object
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark data. **Benchmark Definition and Test Cases** The benchmark definition is represented by the "Benchmark Definition" field in each individual test case, which is a JavaScript code snippet that defines a simple variable `cookies` based on a random condition. The two test cases are: 1. **assign**: This test case creates an object with a `Cookie` property using the `Object.assign()` method. 2. **object**: This test case creates an object with a `Cookie` property, but without using the `Object.assign()` method. **Options Compared** In both test cases, two approaches are being compared: 1. Using `Object.assign()` to create an object with a nested property (`assign` test case). 2. Creating an object directly with curly braces and the property name as key (`object` test case). **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Using `Object.assign()`**: + Pros: Can be more concise and readable, as it eliminates the need to explicitly specify the property name. + Cons: May have performance implications due to the overhead of function calls and object creation. * **Creating an object directly with curly braces**: + Pros: Can be faster and more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of function calls and object creation. + Cons: May require more code and make the syntax less readable. **Other Considerations** * The `cookies` variable is created using a random condition to determine its value. This might help mask any performance differences between the two approaches. * Both test cases use strict equality checks (`===`) when assigning values to the `Cookie` property, which ensures that only the specified value is used. **Libraries and Special JS Features** There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, `Object.assign()` is a built-in JavaScript method that is part of the ECMAScript standard. **Special JS Feature** The only special JavaScript feature mentioned is the use of strict equality checks (`===`) in both test cases. This is not particularly noteworthy, but it's an example of how developers can use specific language features to improve code quality and readability. **Alternatives** If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider adding additional test cases or variations to explore other aspects of JavaScript performance, such as: * Using different data types (e.g., strings, numbers) for the `cookies` variable * Adding more complex logic or conditional statements to the benchmark definition * Testing with different browser versions or platforms * Exploring the impact of JavaScript engine optimizations (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) Keep in mind that the specific test cases and variations will depend on your goals and interests.
Related benchmarks:
Rafa speed test 1
Template Literals vs String Concatenation vs Replace
deep clone (bigger obj2)
IntToRGBA
Seedrandom browser (+ xoshift128**)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?