Benchmark: null vs delete - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

delete
var a = { b: 3, c: "start", r: 228 }; delete a;
null
var a = { b: 3, c: "start", r: 228 }; a = null;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
delete
null

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/88.0.4324.192 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
delete	708416576.0 Ops/sec
null	709666432.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test, which compares two approaches: using `delete` to remove a variable from memory and setting a variable to `null`. The goal of this benchmark is to determine which approach is faster.

**What is being tested?**

In the "Test Case" section, we have two individual tests:

1. `delete`: This test creates an object `a` with properties `b`, `c`, and `r`, and then calls `delete a;`. The browser will attempt to delete the entire object from memory.
2. `null`: This test creates an object `a` with the same properties as above, and then sets it to `a = null;`.

**Options being compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

* **Using `delete`**: This method removes the variable from memory by deleting its binding. However, this only affects the current execution context and does not delete the underlying memory allocation.
* **Setting to `null`**: This method sets the variable to a special value that indicates it is no longer in use. The garbage collector will eventually reclaim the memory allocated for that variable.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using `delete`**:
	+ Pros: This approach may appear faster since it doesn't require the garbage collector to run.
	+ Cons: This approach only affects the current execution context, so subsequent executions will still allocate new memory.
* **Setting to `null`**:
	+ Pros: This approach ensures that the garbage collector can reclaim the memory allocated for the variable.
	+ Cons: This approach may be slower due to the overhead of the garbage collector.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no external libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `delete` operator is a built-in JavaScript operator that allows you to remove a property from an object or delete a variable from memory.

No special JavaScript features are being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When dealing with garbage collection, there are other factors to consider, such as:

* **Object Allocation**: The amount of memory allocated for objects can impact performance.
* **Garbage Collector Frequency**: Different browsers and environments may have different garbage collector frequencies, which can affect the results.
* **Memory Management**: The way JavaScript engines manage memory can also impact performance.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to remove variables from memory include:

* Using `undefined` instead of deleting a variable
* Using a weak reference (e.g., `WeakRef`)
* Manual memory management with `garbageCollector` APIs (although this is not recommended and can be error-prone)

In summary, this benchmark tests two common approaches for removing variables from memory: using `delete` versus setting to `null`. While both methods have their pros and cons, the choice ultimately depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

null vs delete (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: delete vs null

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

delete

null

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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