Benchmark: de vs des - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
    a: 1,
    b: 2,
    c: 3
}

Tests:

delete
delete obj.a
des
const { a, ...rest } = obj;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
delete
des

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
delete	13566485.0 Ops/sec
des	1484052.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasuringThat.net is testing the performance of two different approaches to achieve the same result: deleting a property from an object and using destructuring assignment (also known as "des" or "spread operator") to extract a subset of properties from an object.

The test cases are:

1. `delete obj.a`: This approach deletes the property `a` from the object `obj`.
2. `const { a, ...rest } = obj;`: This approach uses destructuring assignment to extract the value of `a` into a constant variable named `a`, and assigns the rest of the properties to another constant variable named `rest`.

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being compared:

1. **`delete obj.a`**: This approach is simple and straightforward, deleting the property directly.
2. **`const { a, ...rest } = obj;`**: This approach uses destructuring assignment to extract the desired properties.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**`delete obj.a`:**

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand
* No additional memory allocation or copying required

Cons:

* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., deleting a property that is referenced by another variable)
* May have performance implications due to the need to update references to deleted properties

**`const { a, ...rest } = obj;`:**

Pros:

* Avoids deleting the original object and its properties
* Can be more efficient than deleting individual properties (e.g., when dealing with large objects)

Cons:

* Requires understanding of destructuring assignment syntax
* May have performance implications due to the need to create new variables and assign values

**Library used:**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may use internal optimizations or caching mechanisms that could affect the results.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

There are other ways to achieve the same result as `delete obj.a`:

* Using the bracket notation (`obj['a'] = undefined;`)
* Creating a new object with the desired properties (`const newObj = Object.create(obj); newObj.a = 1;`)
* Using a library or framework that provides a "safe delete" function

However, these alternatives may have different performance implications and trade-offs compared to the `delete` operator.

Overall, this benchmark is testing the performance of two different approaches to achieve a specific result in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which approach to use in their own code.

Related benchmarks:

de vs des (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: delete vs des

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

delete

des

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):