Benchmark: delete vs spread need for speed

Script Preparation code:

var person = { name: 'John', age: 23, sex: 'Male' };

Tests:

del
delete person.name
spread
let { name, ...rest} = person

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
del
spread

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code**

The benchmark definition is provided in JSON format, which describes the test being run on the website. Here's what we have:

* The `Name` field specifies the name of the benchmark: "delete vs spread need for speed".
* The `Description` field is empty, as there isn't a detailed description of the benchmark.
* The `Script Preparation Code` section sets up an object `person` with properties `name`, `age`, and `sex`. This will be used as input for the test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Test Case 1: "del"**
	* The `Benchmark Definition` specifies the JavaScript code to run: `delete person.name`.
	* The purpose of this test is to measure the execution speed of deleting a property from an object using the `delete` keyword.
2. **Test Case 2: "spread"**
	* The `Benchmark Definition` specifies the JavaScript code to run: `let { name, ...rest} = person;`.
	* The purpose of this test is to measure the execution speed of destructuring a property from an object using the spread syntax (`{...}`).

**Comparison and Options**

The two approaches compared in these tests are:

1. **Deleting a property directly**: `delete person.name`
2. **Destructuring a property with spread syntax**: `let { name, ...rest} = person;`

These approaches have different pros and cons:

* **Deleting a property directly**:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	+ Cons: May trigger garbage collection if the object is deleted, which can impact performance.
* **Destructuring a property with spread syntax**:
	+ Pros: More efficient and less prone to garbage collection issues, as it only updates references to existing properties.
	+ Cons: Requires more code and may be slower due to additional computation.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, some JavaScript engines (like V8 in Chrome or SpiderMonkey in Firefox) provide built-in support for various optimization techniques, such as:

* **Garbage collection**: Automatic memory management to prevent memory leaks.
* **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: Compiling JavaScript code into native machine code for performance.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special or advanced JavaScript features like async/await, let Constants, or modern ES modules. The focus is on basic property deletion and destructuring operations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other microbenchmarking tools, here are some alternatives:

* **jsperf**: A classic JavaScript benchmarking tool that has been around since 2007.
* **Benchmark.js**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library for Node.js applications.
* **WebPerformance**: Google's web performance testing tool, which includes a JavaScript benchmarking feature.

In summary, the "delete vs spread need for speed" benchmark on MeasureThat.net compares two basic approaches to deleting a property from an object in JavaScript: directly using `delete` and with the spread syntax. The tests aim to measure execution speeds and identify potential optimization techniques.

Related benchmarks:

delete vs spread need for speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: del vs spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

del

spread

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):