Benchmark: desctruct vs property assign for 1000 items

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};
var count = 1000;

for(var i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
  obj[i] = {};
}

Tests:

destruct
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) { Object.entries(obj).reduce((acc, [key, value]) => ({ ...acc, [key]: value }), {}) }
property assign
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) { Object.entries(obj).reduce((acc, [key, value]) => { acc[key] = value; return acc; }, {}) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
destruct
property assign

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 provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for assigning values to an object in JavaScript: destructuring assignment (`...acc, [key]: value`) and property assignment (`acc[key] = value; return acc`).

**Script Preparation Code**
This code sets up a test environment by creating an empty object `obj` with 20 properties. The script then loops 20 times, assigning an empty object to each property of `obj`.

**Html Preparation Code**
There is no HTML preparation code provided.

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Destructuring assignment**: This approach uses the destructuring syntax (`...acc, [key]: value`) to assign values to `acc` and then creates a new object with the assigned properties.
2. **Property assignment**: This approach directly assigns values to `acc[key]` and then returns the updated object.

**Library Usage**
There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**
Both approaches use ES6+ syntax features: destructuring assignment (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and template literals (not explicitly used here, but `...acc` uses an array literal).

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Destructuring Assignment**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive code
		- Reduces clutter by avoiding explicit property assignments
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the creation of intermediate objects (in this case, `acc`)
		- May not work as expected if the object's prototype is modified
* **Property Assignment**:
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster since it avoids creating intermediate objects
		- More predictable behavior in certain edge cases (e.g., when working with objects that inherit from a prototype)
	+ Cons:
		- Less concise and expressive code compared to destructuring assignment
		- Can lead to more boilerplate code if not used carefully

**Other Alternatives**
If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Using the `Object.create()` method**: This can provide a similar experience to property assignment without creating an explicit loop.
2. **Utilizing `forEach()` or `for...of` loops with object iteration**: These can offer better performance and conciseness compared to traditional `for` loops.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as widely supported or well-understood, so ensure you're familiar with their implications before adopting them.

In the context of MeasureThat.net, this benchmark allows users to compare the performance and readability of two JavaScript approaches for assigning values to objects. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which method best suits their use cases.

Related benchmarks:

desctruct vs property assign for 1000 items (version: 0)

((acc, key) => ({ ...acc, [key]: value}) vs { acc[key] = value; return acc }

Comparing performance of: destruct vs property assign

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

destruct

property assign

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):