var obj = {
a:1,
b:2,
c:3
}
delete obj.a
return obj
const { a, rest } = obj
return rest
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
delete | |
spread |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
delete | 15594896.0 Ops/sec |
spread | 3666663.5 Ops/sec |
I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: deleting an object property using the delete
keyword versus destructuring an object using the spread operator (...
). The script preparation code creates a simple object with three properties (a
, b
, and c
) and assigns it to a variable named obj
.
Script Preparation Code
var obj = {
a: 1,
b: 2,
c: 3
}
This creates an object with initial values for each property.
Individual Test Cases
There are two test cases:
delete
: This test case uses the delete
keyword to delete the a
property from the obj
object and returns the updated object.delete obj.a
return obj
spread
: This test case uses the spread operator (...
) to create a new object that includes all properties of the original object, except for the deleted a
property. The resulting object is then returned.const { a, ...rest } = obj
return rest
Comparison
The two approaches are compared in terms of performance. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster.
Pros and Cons:
delete
:spread
:delete
, as it reuses the existing object's memory allocation.Other Considerations
Alternative Approaches
Other approaches that could be used for similar tasks include:
Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, 'a')
to check if a property exists before deleting it.Object.entries()
and Array.from()
for destructuring.Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches may be small, and the choice of method often depends on readability, maintainability, and personal preference.