Benchmark: Function argument deconstructing

Script Preparation code:

const obj = {one: "one", two: "two", three: "three", four: "four", five: "five" };
const length = 10000000;

Tests:

Deconstruct
function deconstruct({one, two, three, four, five}) { const _one = one; const _two = two; const _three = three; const _four = four; const _five = five; } for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) { deconstruct(obj); }
No deconstruct
function deconstruct(_obj) { const _one = _obj.one; const _two = _obj.two; const _three = _obj.three; const _four = _obj.four; const _five = _obj.five; } for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) { deconstruct(obj); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Deconstruct
No deconstruct

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Deconstruct

4.8M/s

No deconstruct

4.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Deconstruct	4,791,121 Ops/sec
No deconstruct	4,743,135 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to destructuring object literals in JavaScript. Destructuring is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows you to extract values from an object into separate variables.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Deconstruct with named properties**: This approach uses the `deconstruct` function with named properties (`one`, `two`, etc.) to extract the values from the object literal.
2. **Deconstruct without named properties**: This approach uses a single `_obj` parameter in the `deconstruct` function and accesses the property names dynamically using the dot notation (`_obj.one`, `_obj.two`, etc.).

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Deconstruct with named properties**:
	* Pros: Readability and maintainability are improved, as the variable names are clearly visible.
	* Cons: It can be less efficient than the dynamic approach, especially when dealing with large numbers of properties.
2. **Deconstruct without named properties**:
	* Pros: This approach is generally faster and more memory-efficient, since it avoids the overhead of looking up property names.
	* Cons: The code may be less readable, as the property names are not explicitly stated.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, no libraries or external dependencies are used. The benchmark is testing only the JavaScript engine's performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's introduced in ES6 (destructuring). No experimental or proprietary features are being tested here.

**Other Alternatives**

There are several other approaches to destructuring object literals, such as using an array of property names or using the spread operator (`{...obj}`) to create a new object. However, these alternatives were not included in this benchmark.

It's worth noting that the performance difference between these two approaches can be significant, especially for large datasets. In general, if readability and maintainability are more important than raw performance, the deconstruct with named properties approach might be preferred. However, if performance is critical, using a dynamic approach without named properties might be a better choice.

Function argument deconstructing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Deconstruct vs No deconstruct`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Deconstruct

No deconstruct

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Function argument deconstructing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Deconstruct vs No deconstruct

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Deconstruct

No deconstruct

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Deconstruct vs No deconstruct`