Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
deconst loop test
(version: 0)
var theArr = Array.from({ length: 1000000 }, (_, el) => ({el:el}))
Comparing performance of:
deconst vs without
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var theArr = Array.from({ length: 1000000 }, (_, el) => ({el:el}))
Tests:
deconst
const test = theArr.map(({el}) => el)
without
const test = theArr.map(_el => _el.el)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
deconst
without
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):
I'll break down the benchmark and its test cases to help you understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined as a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of two approaches: deconstructing an object's property using an arrow function, and without deconstructing using a traditional `const` variable. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code is identical for both test cases: ```javascript var theArr = Array.from({ length: 1000000 }, (_, el) => ({el:el})); ``` This code creates an array of 1 million objects, where each object has a single property `el` with value equal to its index. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: ### Test Case 1: "deconst" ```javascript const test = theArr.map(({el}) => el); ``` This code deconstructs the `el` property of each object in the array using an arrow function, and assigns the result to a new variable `test`. ### Test Case 2: "without" ```javascript const test = theArr.map(_el => _el.el); ``` This code also deconstructs the `el` property of each object in the array, but without using an arrow function. Instead, it uses a traditional `const` variable to store the result. **Library** Neither of these test cases uses any external libraries or frameworks. **Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax** The benchmark takes advantage of a feature known as "rest parameters" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) that allows function arguments to be defined without a specific name. In this case, the `_el` and `el` variables are rest parameter names. **Pros and Cons** Both approaches have their pros and cons: * Deconstructing using an arrow function (`const test = theArr.map(({el}) => el);`): + Pros: concise code, less verbose. + Cons: might be slower due to overhead of arrow functions. * Deconstructing without using an arrow function (`const test = theArr.map(_el => _el.el);`): + Pros: potentially faster due to reduced function overhead. + Cons: more verbose code. **Other Alternatives** If you want to compare these approaches, you might also consider: 1. Using a traditional `for...of` loop instead of `Array.prototype.map()`. 2. Implementing a custom deconstruction function using a regular expression or a library like `loose-try-catch`. Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches might be negligible for most use cases, and the benchmark may prioritize readability over optimization. If you'd like to explore more alternatives or modify this benchmark, I can provide guidance on how to do so!
Related benchmarks:
for.. of vs forEach
Array: get last item
Shift vs Slice
shift vs slice 1 element
For Loop Leng Inside and Outside
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?