Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null )

Tests:

Object.create(null)
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = Object.create(null) o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( o ) }
object literal
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = { } o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( 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:

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 benchmark compares the performance of creating non-empty objects using two different methods: object literals and `Object.create(null)`. This comparison is useful to understand the overhead of using `Object.create` in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Object literal**: Creating an object using the syntax `{ property: value }`.
2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create()` method with a null context, which returns a new object with no prototype.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Object Literal

Pros:

* More intuitive and readable syntax
* No overhead in terms of performance, as it's just syntactic sugar

Cons:

* May be slower due to the need for additional parsing and compilation steps

### Object.create(null)

Pros:

* Can provide a slight performance boost by avoiding the need for unnecessary properties and prototype chain lookups

Cons:

* Less intuitive syntax, which may lead to mistakes or confusion
* Requires special knowledge of `Object.create()` usage

**Library Usage**

Neither of the two options uses any external libraries. However, some browsers might use internal libraries or mechanisms that are not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the options use special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is standard for creating objects.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to create an object with no prototype, you can also use the `new` keyword followed by an empty object:

```javascript
const obj = new Object();
```

Alternatively, you can use a simple assignment statement like this:

```javascript
const obj = {};
```

However, these alternatives are not being compared in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code and Test Cases**

The benchmark preparation code is null for both test cases, which means that no special setup or initialization code is required. The individual test cases define two different scenarios:

1. "Object.create(null)": Uses `Object.create()` to create a new object with no prototype.
2. "object literal": Creates an object using the syntax `{ property: value }`.

The benchmark results show the performance of each approach on a specific test case, which is used to compare their execution speeds.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark result shows that Chrome 114 performs better when creating objects using object literals (8403.9375 executions per second) compared to `Object.create(null)` (541.3246459960938 executions per second). This suggests that the overhead of using `Object.create()` might be noticeable in certain scenarios.

Keep in mind that these results are specific to this benchmark and may not generalize to other situations or environments.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs Object.create(null ) (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

No previous run results

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