Benchmark: Delete vs destructure for objects without mutating-23

Script Preparation code:

function foo(){
  return {
    a:1,
    b:2,
    c:{
      d:3,
      e:4
    }
  }
}

Tests:

delete
const obj = foo(); delete obj.a; delete obj.c.e
Rest object
const { a, ...rest } = foo(); delete rest.c.e

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
delete
Rest 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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is measuring the performance of two approaches to delete properties from an object without mutating it:

1. **`delete obj.a;`**: This approach uses the `delete` operator to remove a property from an object.
2. **`{ a, ...rest } = foo(); delete rest.c.e`**: This approach uses destructuring assignment to extract properties from an object and then deletes the desired property using `delete`.

**Comparison:**

The two approaches are compared in terms of performance, which is measured by the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **`delete obj.a;`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward approach.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled carefully (e.g., removing a property that has been reassigned).
		+ May involve more overhead due to the need to check if the property exists before deleting it.
2. **`{ a, ...rest } = foo(); delete rest.c.e`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More predictable and safe approach, as it avoids using the `delete` operator directly on an object.
		+ Can be more efficient, as it only accesses the desired property.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires understanding of destructuring assignment and may be less intuitive for some developers.

**Library:**

None. This benchmark does not use any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

This benchmark uses **destructuring assignment**, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Destructuring assignment allows you to extract properties from an object into variables. In this benchmark, it's used to extract the `a` property and the rest of the object into separate variables.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses **const objects**, which means that the values of the properties are frozen in memory once the object is created.
* The benchmark also uses **non-mutating approaches**, which means that the original object is not modified. This can lead to performance implications, as the browser needs to create a new object or copy the existing one.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test alternative approaches, here are some ideas:

1. Use **`obj.a = undefined;`** instead of `delete obj.a;` to remove the property without deleting it from memory.
2. Compare using **`Object.defineProperty()`** to define a getter for the deleted property, rather than using `delete`.
3. Test using different types of objects (e.g., arrays, sets) or different data structures (e.g., JSON, strings).

By considering these alternatives and understanding the trade-offs between them, you can gain a deeper insight into the performance implications of different approaches in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Delete vs destructure for objects without mutating-23 (version: 0)

Measure the performance of delete versus removing a prop from an object without mutating

Comparing performance of: delete vs Rest object

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

delete

Rest object

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):