var object = {
data: {
1: {
2: {
3: 4
}
}
},
};
const data = object.data;
const { data } = object;
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
dot | |
destructure |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
dot | 215595744.0 Ops/sec |
destructure | 217903488.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark compares two approaches for accessing nested data in JavaScript: using the dot notation (.
) versus destructuring an object ({ ... }
).
Test Cases
There are only two test cases:
const data = object.data;
const { data } = object;
Options Compared
The benchmark is comparing two options:
.
): This approach involves using the dot notation to access nested properties of an object.{ ... }
): This approach involves destructuring an object to extract values, including deeply nested ones.Pros and Cons
Here are some pros and cons of each approach:
.
):{ ... }
):Library
None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, destructuring an object may implicitly rely on various libraries or built-in functions (e.g., Object.assign()
, Array.prototype.reduce()
).
Special JS Features or Syntax
Neither test case uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard dot notation and destructuring.
Other Considerations
The benchmark seems to focus primarily on the performance differences between these two approaches. However, other factors like memory usage, readability, and maintainability might also be worth considering in a real-world scenario.
Alternatives
Some alternative approaches for accessing nested data in JavaScript include:
Array.prototype.reduce()
: This method can be used to iterate over objects and extract values.const result = object.data.reduce((acc, value) => {
// ...
}, {});
Object.keys()
and forEach()
: Another way to access nested data using an array of keys.const keys = Object.keys(object);
const result = [];
keys.forEach(key => {
// ...
});
These alternatives might be more suitable for specific use cases, but they come with their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.