Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null) v4

Tests:

Object.create(null)
let o; const create = Object.create.bind(null, null); for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = create() }
object literal
let o; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = {} }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create(null)
object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.create(null)	6224.3 Ops/sec
object literal	83811.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website provides a JavaScript microbenchmarking platform where users can create and run benchmarks to compare the performance of different code approaches. The provided benchmark definition represents two test cases: "object literal" and "Object.create(null) v4".

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of creating non-empty objects using two different approaches:

1. **Object Literal**: Creating an object directly in memory using the `{}` syntax.
2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create` method with `null` as the first argument to create a new object.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches, which implies that the test is evaluating the overhead of creating an object using the `Object.create` method versus the direct `{}` syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Object Literal:**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster creation time, as it eliminates the need for a constructor function call.
		- More concise and readable syntax.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for cases where an object needs to inherit properties from another object (as `Object.create` preserves the prototype chain).
* **Object.create(null):**
	+ Pros:
		- Allows for more flexibility in object creation, such as inheriting properties from other objects.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower creation time due to the constructor function call.

**Library and Purpose**

In the benchmark definition, the `Object.create` method is used with `null` as the first argument. The `Object.create(null)` syntax creates a new object without an explicit constructor function. This approach allows for creating objects that do not inherit from any other object.

**Special JS feature or syntax (if applicable)**

In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax used beyond what is standard in ECMAScript.

**Other alternatives**

To create an object without using the `{}` syntax or `Object.create(null)`, alternative approaches include:

1. Using a custom constructor function: `function ObjectLiteral() {}`
2. Using `new` operator with an empty object literal: `const o = new { }`
3. Using a factory function: `function createObject() { return {}; }`

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or change the object's behavior compared to using `object literal` or `Object.create(null)`.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` are empty, indicating that no special setup or configuration is required for the benchmark execution.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs Object.create(null) v4 (version: 0)

compare performance of object creating non-empty objects using object literal vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: Object.create(null) vs object literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create(null)

object literal

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):