Benchmark: String object key performance

Script Preparation code:

var a = {
    alphaKeyValue: 0,
    bravoKeyValue: 0,
    charlieKeyValue: 0,
    deltaKeyValue: 0,
    echoKeyValue: 0,
}
var b = {
    "alpha.KeyValue": 0,
    "bravo.KeyValue": 0,
    "charlie.KeyValue": 0,
    "delta.KeyValue": 0,
    "echo.KeyValue": 0,
}

Tests:

Non string
if (Math.round(Math.random() * 2) % 2) { ++a.alphaKeyValue ++a.echoKeyValue } else { ++a.charlieKeyValue ++a.bravoKeyValue ++a.deltaKeyValue }
String
if (Math.round(Math.random() * 2) % 2) { ++b["alpha.KeyValue"] ++b["echo.KeyValue"] } else { ++b["charlie.KeyValue"] ++b["bravo.KeyValue"] ++b["delta.KeyValue"] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Non string
String

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using an object with numeric keys (`a`) versus using an object with string keys wrapped in double quotes (`b`).

**What is tested?**

In both test cases, the same logic is applied:

1. Generate a random number using `Math.random()` and check if it's even or odd.
2. If the result is even, increment two specific numeric keys (`alphaKeyValue` and `echoKeyValue`) in object `a`.
3. If the result is odd, increment four specific string-keyed properties (`alpha.KeyValue`, `bravo.KeyValue`, `charlie.KeyValue`, and `delta.KeyValue`) in object `b`.

**Options compared**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **Non-string**: Object `a` uses numeric keys (`alphaKeyValue`, `echoKeyValue`, etc.). This approach is likely to be faster since JavaScript can directly access and modify the values of a numeric key using simple arithmetic operators (e.g., `++a.alphaKeyValue`).
2. **String**: Object `b` uses string-keyed properties wrapped in double quotes (`"alpha.KeyValue"`, `"echo.KeyValue"`, etc.). This approach requires more overhead, as JavaScript needs to parse and look up the property name using bracket notation (e.g., `b["alpha.KeyValue"]`).

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Non-string**:
	* Pros: Faster access and modification, reduced parsing overhead.
	* Cons: Limited flexibility, requires explicit numeric key management.
2. **String**:
	* Pros: More flexible and convenient, allows for dynamic property names.
	* Cons: Slower lookup and access times due to string parsing.

**Library and special JS feature**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark, but it does utilize JavaScript's built-in `Math.random()` function to generate random numbers. No other advanced features or syntax are employed.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring object performance include:

1. Accessing properties using dot notation (e.g., `a.alphaKeyValue`) instead of bracket notation.
2. Using a different data structure, such as an array with objects (e.g., `[ { alpha: 0, echo: 0 }, ... ]`).
3. Adding additional complexity to the benchmark, such as nested objects or arrays.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. MeasureThat.net provides a convenient way to compare different approaches and identify performance bottlenecks in JavaScript applications.

Related benchmarks:

String object key performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Non string vs String

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Non string

String

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):