Benchmark: obmit properties

HTML Preparation code:

<script>const myCar = {
    make: 'Ford',
    model: 'Mustang',
    year: 1969,
};
  const year = 'year';</script>

Tests:

1
const { [year]: a, ...b } = myCar;
2
const a = { ...myCar }; delete a[year];
3
function objectWithoutKeys(obj, keys) { return Object.keys(obj).reduce((newObject, key) => { if (keys.indexOf(key) === -1) newObject[key] = obj[key]; return newObject; }, {}); } const test = objectWithoutKeys(myCar, year);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests three different approaches to remove specific properties from an object in JavaScript. The input object, `myCar`, is defined with some sample data in the HTML preparation code.

**Approach 1: Destructuring**

The first approach uses destructuring assignment:
```javascript
const { [year]: a, ...b } = myCar;
```
This syntax uses an object literal and destructures the `myCar` object into two parts: `a`, which contains only the property with the key `year`, and `b`, which contains all other properties.

**Pros and Cons**

* Pros:
	+ Concise and elegant syntax.
	+ Easy to read and write.
* Cons:
	+ May not be as efficient as other approaches, since it involves a new object creation.
	+ Limited control over the resulting object structure.

**Approach 2: Object spread operator**

The second approach uses the object spread operator (`...`):
```javascript
const a = { ...myCar };
delete a[year];
```
This syntax creates a shallow copy of `myCar` and then deletes the property with key `year`.

**Pros and Cons**

* Pros:
	+ Efficient, since it doesn't create a new object.
	+ Allows for more control over the resulting object structure.
* Cons:
	+ May be less readable than destructuring assignment, especially for complex objects.

**Approach 3: Custom function**

The third approach uses a custom function to remove specific properties from an object:
```javascript
function objectWithoutKeys(obj, keys) {
    return Object.keys(obj).reduce((newObject, key) => {
        if (keys.indexOf(key) === -1) newObject[key] = obj[key];
        return newObject;
    }, {});
}
```
This function takes the input object `obj` and an array of keys to exclude. It returns a new object that only includes properties not present in the `keys` array.

**Pros and Cons**

* Pros:
	+ Highly customizable.
	+ Allows for efficient computation, since it doesn't create new objects.
* Cons:
	+ More verbose syntax compared to destructuring assignment or object spread operator.
	+ May require additional parameters (e.g., keys array) that are not present in the other approaches.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `Object.keys()` method and the `reduce()` method, which are part of the JavaScript standard library. The `delete` operator is also used to remove properties from an object.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. Using `for...in` loop and conditional statements: This approach involves iterating over the object's properties using a `for...in` loop and checking if each property is present in the `keys` array before including it in the resulting object.
2. Using `JSON.parse()` with JSON schema validation: This approach involves parsing the original object as JSON and then validating its structure against a predefined schema to exclude specific properties.
3. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming utilities: These libraries provide functions that can be used to manipulate objects in different ways, such as filtering out properties based on conditions.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may suit different use cases better than others.

Related benchmarks:

obmit properties (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

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):