Benchmark: assign test sldqoidqdoiqhoqff

Script Preparation code:

state = {
    "table1": {
        "itemid1": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid2": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid3": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid4": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid5": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid6": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid7": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid8": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid9": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid10": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid11": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid12": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"}
    },
    "table2": {
        "itemid1": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid2": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid3": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid4": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid5": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid6": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid7": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid8": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid9": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid10": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid11": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"},
        "itemid12": {"a": "aze", "b": 21.5, "c": 0.54577, "d": "adqdqhdsqdqd"}
    }
}

item = {"a": "qdqsfffffff", "b": 21244, "c": 0.11, "d": "sdlqsfq4qq"}

Tests:

using keys:
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(item)) { state["table2"]["itemid1"][key] = value }
using object assign
Object.assign(state["table2"]["itemid1"], item)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using keys:
using object assign

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Context**
The benchmark is designed to test how efficiently JavaScript can access and update values in an object using two different methods: `Object.entries()` with a for-of loop and `Object.assign()`. The benchmarking framework uses a test case where a large object (`item`) is created, and its properties are iterated over using both methods.

**Method 1: Using `Object.entries()` with a for-of loop**
```javascript
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(item)) {
  state["table2"][ "itemid1" ][ key ] = value;
}
```
This method uses the `Object.entries()` method to get an array of the object's key-value pairs and then iterates over it using a for-of loop. In each iteration, it updates the corresponding property in the `state` object.

**Method 2: Using `Object.assign()"`
```javascript
Object.assign(state["table2"]["itemid1"], item);
```
This method uses the `Object.assign()` function to update the properties of an existing object (`state["table2"]["itemid1"]`) with new key-value pairs from another object (`item`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Method 1 (for-of loop)**:
	+ Pros: More control over the iteration process, potentially more efficient since it avoids the overhead of `Object.assign()`.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the additional function call and loop overhead.
* **Method 2 (`Object.assign()`)**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more concise, as it leverages the optimized internal implementation of `Object.assign()`.
	+ Cons: Less control over the iteration process, potentially less efficient due to the overhead of function calls.

**Benchmark Results**
The latest benchmark results show that:

* Method 1 (for-of loop) yields approximately 236K executions per second.
* Method 2 (`Object.assign()`) yields approximately 913K executions per second.

Based on these results, `Object.assign()` appears to be the faster method, which is expected given its optimized internal implementation. However, it's essential to note that this benchmark may not represent real-world scenarios, and the actual performance differences between these methods may vary depending on specific use cases and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

assign test sldqoidqdoiqhoqff (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using keys: vs using object assign

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using keys:

using object assign

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):