Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null) v4 13.07.2023

Tests:

Object.create(null)
let o; const create = Object.create.bind(null, null); for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = create() }
object literal
let o; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = {} }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create(null)
object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year 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
Object.create(null)	8111.5 Ops/sec
object literal	346890.8 Ops/sec

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 test on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for creating non-empty objects: using an object literal ( `{}` ) and `Object.create(null)`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Object Literal**: Using curly braces (`{}`) to create a new object.
2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create` method with `null` as the prototype to create a new object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Object Literal**
	+ Pros:
		- Widespread support across browsers and engines
		- Simple and concise syntax
		- No need for additional memory allocation or setup
	+ Cons:
		- May result in slower performance due to the overhead of creating a new object with no prototype chain
		- May lead to more memory allocation if objects are not properly garbage collected
* **Object.create(null)**
	+ Pros:
		- Can provide better performance by avoiding the overhead of creating an empty object with a prototype chain
		- Reduces memory allocation and can be beneficial for small, simple objects
	+ Cons:
		- Less widely supported across browsers and engines (although modern engines support it)
		- Requires additional setup and may require more manual memory management

**Library Used**

In the provided test case, `Object.create` is used with `null` as the prototype. The purpose of this library is to create a new object without setting its prototype chain.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature called "binding" (using `bind(null)` in this case). Binding allows you to pass an argument to a function and have it bound to that value, rather than relying on the function's `this` context. In this specific case, `Object.create.bind(null)` is used to create a new object with no prototype chain.

**Other Alternatives**

If neither of these approaches were available, other alternatives could include:

* Using a constructor function (`function ObjectLiteral() { }`)
* Using a library like Lodash's `_.create` function
* Implementing a custom object creation function using JavaScript's built-in `new` operator and `Object.defineProperty`

It is worth noting that the choice of object creation approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and browser or engine support.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs Object.create(null) v4 13.07.2023 (version: 0)

compare performance of object creating non-empty objects using object literal vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: Object.create(null) vs object literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create(null)

object literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):