Benchmark: Object destruction vs. dot notation 5

Script Preparation code:

var object = {a: {b: {c: 3}}}
var i = 0

Tests:

object destruction
const { a: { b: { c } } } = object const d = c+1 i += d
dot notation
const c = object.a.b.c const d = c+1 i += d

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object destruction
dot notation

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/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object destruction	25179000.0 Ops/sec
dot notation	24753668.0 Ops/sec

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 definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking framework where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark is defined by two script preparation codes, which are used to prepare the execution environment for the benchmark.

The first script preparation code creates an object with nested properties:
```javascript
var object = {a: {b: {c: 3}}}
```
This object has a property `a` that contains another object with a property `b` and a property `c`. The value of `c` is set to 3.

The second script preparation code initializes a variable `i` to 0:
```javascript
var i = 0
```

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Object destruction**: This test case uses the following benchmark definition:
```javascript
const { a: { b: { c } } } = object
const d = c+1
i += d
```
This code destructures the `object` and assigns its nested property `c` to a constant variable `c`. It then calculates a new value `d` by adding 1 to `c`, and finally increments the variable `i` by `d`.

2. **Dot notation**: This test case uses the following benchmark definition:
```javascript
const c = object.a.b.c
const d = c+1
i += d
```
This code uses dot notation to access the nested property `c` of the `object`. It then calculates a new value `d` by adding 1 to `c`, and finally increments the variable `i` by `d`.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of object destruction (using destructuring) versus using dot notation to access nested properties.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **Object destruction**: This approach has several advantages:
	+ It is more concise and easier to read, as it eliminates the need for explicit property accesses.
	+ It can be faster, as it avoids the overhead of accessing nested properties using dot notation.
	+ However, this approach requires JavaScript 17 or later to support destructuring assignment.
* **Dot notation**: This approach has several advantages:
	+ It is more widely supported across different browsers and versions, as it does not require JavaScript 17 or later.
	+ It can be easier to understand for developers who are familiar with dot notation.

However, dot notation also has some disadvantages:

+ It can be less concise and harder to read than object destruction.
	+ It may have performance implications due to the overhead of accessing nested properties.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmarking framework used by MeasureThat.net likely takes into account various factors that affect performance, such as:

* The execution environment (e.g., browser, device platform, operating system)
* The number of executions per second
* The raw UAScript string, which may contain information about the test run's metadata

**Alternative Approaches**

If you want to explore alternative approaches or variations on these benchmarks, you could consider:

* Using other destructuring methods (e.g., `Object.assign()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`)
* Using different data structures or nested property access patterns
* Adding additional operations or constraints to the benchmark test cases

However, please note that modifying or extending existing benchmark test cases may require careful consideration of performance implications and potential changes in behavior.

Related benchmarks:

Object destruction vs. dot notation 5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object destruction vs dot notation

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object destruction

dot notation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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