Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Object literal vs Object.create(null) v4
(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
Tests:
Object.create(null)
let o; const create = Object.create.bind(null, null); for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = create() }
object literal
let o; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = {} }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
**Benchmark Overview** The MeasureThat.net website provides a JavaScript microbenchmarking platform where users can create and run benchmarks to compare the performance of different code approaches. The provided benchmark definition represents two test cases: "object literal" and "Object.create(null) v4". **What is being tested?** The benchmark tests the performance of creating non-empty objects using two different approaches: 1. **Object Literal**: Creating an object directly in memory using the `{}` syntax. 2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create` method with `null` as the first argument to create a new object. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches, which implies that the test is evaluating the overhead of creating an object using the `Object.create` method versus the direct `{}` syntax. **Pros and Cons** * **Object Literal:** + Pros: - Faster creation time, as it eliminates the need for a constructor function call. - More concise and readable syntax. + Cons: - May not be suitable for cases where an object needs to inherit properties from another object (as `Object.create` preserves the prototype chain). * **Object.create(null):** + Pros: - Allows for more flexibility in object creation, such as inheriting properties from other objects. + Cons: - Slower creation time due to the constructor function call. **Library and Purpose** In the benchmark definition, the `Object.create` method is used with `null` as the first argument. The `Object.create(null)` syntax creates a new object without an explicit constructor function. This approach allows for creating objects that do not inherit from any other object. **Special JS feature or syntax (if applicable)** In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax used beyond what is standard in ECMAScript. **Other alternatives** To create an object without using the `{}` syntax or `Object.create(null)`, alternative approaches include: 1. Using a custom constructor function: `function ObjectLiteral() {}` 2. Using `new` operator with an empty object literal: `const o = new { }` 3. Using a factory function: `function createObject() { return {}; }` Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or change the object's behavior compared to using `object literal` or `Object.create(null)`. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` are empty, indicating that no special setup or configuration is required for the benchmark execution.
Related benchmarks:
Object.create(null) vs Object literal
Object literal vs Object.create(null) v3
Object literal vs Object.create(null) v5
Object literal vs Object.create(null) v4 13.07.2023
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?