Benchmark: Destructuring vs undefined

Script Preparation code:

const user = {
    email: "123@email.com",
    password: "AA&Â&A*&AA"
}

Tests:

Destructuring
const user = { email: "123@email.com", password: "AA&Â&A*&AA" } const { password, ...toBeReturned} = user;
Undefined
const user = { email: "123@email.com", password: "AA&Â&A*&AA" } user.password = undefined;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destructuring
Undefined

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Destructuring	1858254.5 Ops/sec
Undefined	3721960.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. The tests are designed to compare the performance of destructuring assignment with `undefined` (in this case, setting `user.password` to `undefined`) versus regular object access.

In other words, the tests are measuring how fast it is to access and manipulate objects in JavaScript using two different approaches:

1. Destructuring assignment: This involves using the syntax `{ ... }` to extract specific properties from an object, assigning them to variables.
2. Regular object access: This involves accessing a property directly on an object without extracting it into a variable.

**Options being compared**

The options being compared are:

* Destructuring assignment with `undefined`
* Regular object access with setting a property to `undefined`

**Pros and cons of each approach**

Destructuring assignment with `undefined`:

Pros:

* Can be more concise and readable, especially for complex objects
* Avoids the need to explicitly check if a property exists

Cons:

* May incur a small overhead due to the need to create an object literal and extract properties
* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., assigning `undefined` to a required variable)

Regular object access with setting a property to `undefined`:

Pros:

* Can be more explicit and intuitive, especially for simple objects or when working with legacy code
* Does not incur the overhead of creating an object literal

Cons:

* May require more lines of code and can look less concise
* Forces the developer to explicitly check if a property exists

**Library usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The tests only involve basic JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is considered standard in modern JavaScript.

**Other considerations**

When writing performance-critical code, it's essential to consider the trade-offs between conciseness, readability, and performance. In this case, the tests are designed to compare two approaches that have different overheads and implications for developer intent.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to optimize object access in JavaScript, you might consider:

* Using `Object.assign()` or other spread operators to create a new object with only the desired properties
* Utilizing `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` to check if a property exists before accessing it
* Employing caching mechanisms to reduce the number of times objects are accessed

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to destructuring assignment or regular object access.

Related benchmarks:

Destructuring vs undefined (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Destructuring vs Undefined

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destructuring

Undefined

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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