Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null) v2

Tests:

Object.create(null)
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = Object.create(null) o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( o ) }
object literal
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = {} o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( o ) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create(null)
object literal

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 benchmark and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark defined by MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to create non-empty objects:

1. **Object Literal**: Creating an object directly using curly brackets `{}`.
2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create` method with no properties (`null`) to create a new object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the execution time of these two approaches for creating 10,000 objects with specific properties (strings and numbers).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Object Literal**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and write, well-established syntax.
	* Cons: May incur a performance overhead due to parsing and compiling the object literal expression.
2. **Object.create(null)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than object literals for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of parsing and compiling the object creation expression.
	* Cons: Less readable and maintainable than object literals, requires understanding of the `Object.create` method.

**Library and Syntax Used**

The benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript `Object` and `Array` APIs. The `Object.create(null)` syntax is part of the ECMAScript standard since ECMAScript 5 (2011).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark, but note that some features like ES6 classes or destructuring assignment might be used in other benchmarks.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could also compare the performance of:

* Using `Object.assign` or spread operator (`{...}`) instead of object literals.
* Using libraries like Lodash or Ramda for creating objects and arrays.
* Implementing a custom object creation function using bitwise operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs Object.create(null) v2 (version: 0)

compare performance of object creating non-empty objects using object literal vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: Object.create(null) vs object literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create(null)

object literal

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):