Benchmark: Destructuring vs property access

Tests:

Destructuring
const test = { x: 'foo', y: 'bar' } const { x, y } = test
Property access
const test = { x: 'foo', y: 'bar' } const x = test.x const y = test.y

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destructuring
Property access

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 16 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Destructuring	165541632.0 Ops/sec
Property access	165064128.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two ways to access data within an object: destructuring and property access.

**Destructuring**

In JavaScript, destructuring allows you to extract variables from an object in a concise way. The `const { x, y } = test` syntax creates two new variables, `x` and `y`, and assigns them the values of the corresponding properties in the `test` object.

Pros:

1. **Readability**: Destructuring can make code more readable, especially when working with objects that have many properties.
2. **Efficiency**: Destructuring can be faster than property access because it avoids the overhead of property lookup and array indexing.

Cons:

1. **Complexity**: Destructuring can add complexity to code, making it harder to understand for some developers.
2. **Limited support**: Older browsers might not support destructuring.

**Property Access**

In JavaScript, you can access properties of an object using dot notation (e.g., `test.x`).

Pros:

1. **Widespread support**: Property access is supported by all modern browsers and older ones.
2. **Simple**: Property access is a simple and straightforward way to access data.

Cons:

1. **Cluttered code**: Repeatedly accessing properties using dot notation can make code look cluttered and harder to read.
2. **Slower**: Property access can be slower than destructuring because of the overhead of property lookup and array indexing.

**Library**

None is explicitly mentioned, but it's worth noting that some JavaScript libraries (e.g., Lodash) provide utility functions for working with objects, including destructuring.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax in this benchmark. The focus is on understanding the difference between destructuring and property access.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare other ways to access data within an object, here are some alternatives:

1. **Brackets notation**: `const { x, y } = test` (already tested in this benchmark)
2. **Array methods**: Using array methods like `Object.assign()` or `Array.prototype.map()`
3. **Looping over properties**: Using a `for...in` loop to iterate over the object's properties

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or readable as destructuring or property access, but they can provide different trade-offs depending on your specific use case.

In summary, this benchmark is testing two ways to access data within an object: destructuring and property access. Destructuring offers readability and efficiency benefits, but has limited support in older browsers. Property access provides wider support but can lead to cluttered code and slower performance.

Related benchmarks:

Destructuring vs property access (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Destructuring vs Property access

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destructuring

Property access

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):