Benchmark: omit vs delete 1234

Script Preparation code:

var omit = (keys, obj) => {
        if (!keys.length) return obj;
        const { [keys.pop()]: _omitted, ...rest } = obj;
        return omit(keys, rest);
    };

var data = {
  'name': 'jhonny',
  'age': 16,
  'grade': 'a'
};

Tests:

delete
delete data.age;
omit
omit(['age'], data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
delete
omit

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: `delete` and `omit`. Both are used to remove properties from an object, but they work in different ways.

1. **Delete**: The `delete` operator is a built-in JavaScript operator that removes a property from an object by its key. In the benchmark definition, it's used as `delete data.age;`, which directly deletes the property `'age'` from the `data` object.
2. **Omit**: The `omit` function, defined in the Script Preparation Code, is a custom implementation that recursively removes properties from an object based on a provided array of keys. In this case, it's used as `omit(['age'], data);`, which removes the property `'age'` and all its nested properties from the `data` object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Delete**: Directly deleting the property using the `delete` operator.
* **Omit**: Recursively removing properties using a custom function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Delete**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast: Deleting a single property is relatively fast, especially when compared to recursive operations.
		+ Memory-efficient: Only the property's metadata is updated, reducing memory allocation.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited control: You can't easily remove entire objects or nested properties using `delete`.
2. **Omit**:
	* Pros:
		+ Flexible: Allows removing entire objects or nested properties based on a provided array of keys.
		+ Easy to use: Can be used with an array of keys, making it easy to remove multiple properties at once.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower: Recursive operations can be slower than direct deletions.
		+ Memory-intensive: Recursively traversing the object can consume more memory.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it does use a custom `omit` function, which suggests that the developer wanted to create their own implementation for removing properties from objects.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `delete` and `omit`, consider the following:

* If you only need to remove individual properties, `delete` might be faster and more memory-efficient.
* If you need to remove entire objects or nested properties, `omit` provides more flexibility but can be slower and consume more memory.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for removing properties from objects in JavaScript include:

1. **Object.keys()**, `forEach()`, and **splice()**: You can use these methods to iterate over the object's keys and remove them manually.
2. **Array.prototype.filter()**: You can convert the object's keys to an array and use `filter()` to create a new object without the desired properties.
3. **Object.assign()** with **null**: You can create a new object by assigning null to the desired property, effectively removing it.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might be slower or more memory-intensive than using `delete` or `omit`.

Related benchmarks:

omit vs delete 1234 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: delete vs omit

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

delete

omit

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):