Benchmark: dot vs destructure syntax

Script Preparation code:

var object = {
    data: {
        one: {
            two: {
               three: 4
            }
        }
    },
};

Tests:

dot
const data = object.data; const one = data.one; const two = one.two; const three = two.three;
destructure
const { data } = object; const { one } = data; const { two } = one; const { three } = two;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
dot
destructure

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two different approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects: dot notation and destructuring syntax.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `object` with a nested structure:
```javascript
var object = {
  data: {
    one: {
      two: {
        three: 4
      }
    }
  }
};
```
This object serves as the base for both test cases.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Dot Notation (dot)**

The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
const data = object.data;
const one = data.one;
const two = one.two;
const three = two.three;
```
This approach uses the dot notation to access nested properties.

Pros of dot notation:

* Easy to read and write, especially for simple cases.
* Wide support across JavaScript engines.

Cons of dot notation:

* Can be verbose for deeply nested objects.
* May lead to errors if the property names are misspelled or not existent.

2. **Destructuring Syntax (destructure)**

The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
const { data } = object;
const { one } = data;
const { two } = one;
const { three } = two;
```
This approach uses destructuring syntax to extract values from the `object`.

Pros of destructuring syntax:

* More concise and readable for nested objects.
* Reduces error-prone code.

Cons of destructuring syntax:

* May require additional setup or understanding of the object's structure.
* Not all JavaScript engines support this syntax (e.g., older versions).

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might have built-in optimizations or features for specific syntaxes.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show:

* Dot notation (dot): 8957549 executions per second.
* Destructuring syntax (destructure): 8872720 executions per second.

These results suggest that destructuring syntax is slightly faster than dot notation, but the difference is relatively small.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects include:

1. **Bracket notation**: Using square brackets `[]` to access properties, e.g., `object["data"]["one"]["two"]`.
2. **Array methods**: Using array methods like `find()` or `filter()` to access properties.
3. **Object.keys() and loop**: Using `Object.keys()` to get an array of property names and then looping through it.

These alternatives might have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and compatibility with different JavaScript engines.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.141 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
dot	8957549.0 Ops/sec
destructure	8872720.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

dot vs destructure syntax (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: dot vs destructure

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

dot

destructure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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