Benchmark: Create from json

Script Preparation code:

var a = {
  b: 'c'
}

Tests:

const { b } = a
const { b } = a
const b = a.b
const b = a.b

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
const { b } = a
const b = a.b

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and understand what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches for accessing nested object properties: using destructuring assignment (`const { b } = a`) versus direct property access (`const b = a.b`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var a = {
  b: 'c'
};
```
This creates an object `a` with a single property `b` and assigns the value `'c'` to it.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Destructuring assignment**: This approach uses the syntax `{ b } = a` to extract the `b` property from the object `a`. Destructuring is a shorthand way of assigning properties from an object to variables.
2. **Direct property access**: This approach uses the syntax `const b = a.b` to directly access the `b` property of the object `a`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Destructuring assignment**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and efficient way to extract multiple properties from an object.
	+ Cons: can be slower due to the creation of a new variable, and may not work as expected if the object being destructured is complex or has multiple levels of nesting.
* **Direct property access**:
	+ Pros: straightforward, easy to understand, and generally faster than destructuring assignment.
	+ Cons: can be less readable, especially for complex objects with many nested properties.

**Other Considerations**

In modern JavaScript, both approaches have similar performance characteristics. However, the choice between them depends on code readability, maintainability, and personal preference.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net uses a custom parser to execute the benchmarks, which allows for a more controlled environment.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the approaches use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic syntax of objects and property access.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested object properties might include:

* Using a loop or `for...in` to iterate over the object's properties.
* Using a function or method to dynamically generate the property access code.
* Utilizing a library like Lodash, which provides utility functions for working with objects and arrays.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the destructuring assignment and direct property access approaches used in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Mac OS X 10.14.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
const { b } = a	17535142.0 Ops/sec
const b = a.b	17771370.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Create from json (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: const { b } = a vs const b = a.b

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

const { b } = a

const b = a.b

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):