Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Defining consts vs putting directly to object result
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Assigning directly vs Using variables
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Assigning directly
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] const newArr = arr.map(num => ({ cube: num * num * num, square: num * num, orig: num, }))
Using variables
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] const newArr = arr.map(num => { const cube = num * num * num const square = num * num const orig = num return { cube, square, orig } })
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Assigning directly
Using variables
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):
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, and it's designed to compare two different approaches for creating an array of objects. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark is testing the performance difference between defining constants (`const`) versus directly assigning values to object properties when creating a new array of objects. In other words, the test case compares: 1. **Defining constants**: Using `const` to define variables and then using those variables to create an array of objects. 2. **Direct assignment**: Directly assigning values to object properties without defining intermediate variables. **Options compared:** * Defining constants (`const`) vs direct assignment * Using a single variable to hold multiple values (in the "Using variables" approach) vs directly assigning each value to an object property **Pros and Cons of each approach:** * **Defining constants**: Pros: * More readable code (as it's easier to understand that `cube`, `square`, and `orig` are related) * Less prone to typos or mistakes Cons: * May introduce unnecessary overhead due to the creation of intermediate variables * **Direct assignment**: Pros: * Less overhead due to fewer operations (directly assigning each value to an object property is simpler) * Faster execution (potentially faster) Cons: * More prone to typos or mistakes (it's easier to accidentally assign the wrong value to a property) * Less readable code (as it's harder to understand that `cube`, `square`, and `orig` are related) **Library/feature usage:** There is no explicit library or feature being used in this benchmark. However, it does rely on JavaScript's built-in `const` keyword for defining constants. **Special JS features/syntax:** This test case uses a common JavaScript pattern known as the "object destructuring" feature (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). The "Using variables" approach utilizes object destructuring to extract values from an object. However, since the `const` keyword is also used for defining constants, the main focus of this benchmark isn't on object destructuring specifically. **Other alternatives:** If you wanted to modify or extend this benchmark, some alternative approaches could be: * Adding a third option that uses a different data structure (e.g., using an array comprehension or a `map` with a function) * Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or versions * Including additional variables or complex calculations within the mapping function to better capture performance differences in real-world scenarios By understanding these aspects, developers can use this benchmark as a starting point for their own microbenchmarking efforts and make more informed decisions about code optimization.
Related benchmarks:
Object.assign vs spread operator SM
const vs direct usages
Spread vs Assign benchmark
Spread vs Assign benchmark 2
Object.create(null) vs Object literal
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?