Benchmark: Array sort with ot without destructuring

Tests:

Access
"use strict"; const testArray = []; for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { const obj = { index: Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100), foo: { size: Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100), color: `${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 255)} ${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 255)} ${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 255)}` }, simpleObjs: [] }; for (let j = 0; j < 25; j++) { const simpleObject = { title: `${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 666)}`, quantity: Math.ceil(Math.random() * 10), description: `WOOW${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100)}OWOWOWO${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100)}WOW` }; obj.simpleObjs.push(simpleObject); } testArray.push(obj); } testArray.sort((a, b) => { if (a.index > b.index) { return 1; } if (a.index < b.index) { return -1; } return 0; });
Destruct
"use strict"; const testArray = []; for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { const obj = { index: Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100), foo: { size: Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100), color: `${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 255)} ${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 255)} ${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 255)}` }, simpleObjs: [] }; for (let j = 0; j < 25; j++) { const simpleObject = { title: `${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 666)}`, quantity: Math.ceil(Math.random() * 10), description: `WOOW${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100)}OWOWOWO${Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100)}WOW` }; obj.simpleObjs.push(simpleObject); } testArray.push(obj); } testArray.sort(({ index: aIndex }, { index: bIndex }) => { if (aIndex > bIndex) { return 1; } if (aIndex < bIndex) { return -1; } return 0; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Access
Destruct

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to sorting an array: with destructuring and without destructuring.

**Without Destructuring**

In this approach, each object in the `testArray` has a nested `simpleObjs` property containing an array of simple objects. When sorting, the callback function compares the `index` properties of individual objects within the arrays using the `Math.ceil(Math.random() * 100)` expression.

**With Destructuring**

In this approach, each object in the `testArray` has a single `index` property and no nested `simpleObjs` property. When sorting, the callback function compares the `index` properties of individual objects using destructuring assignment: `{ index: aIndex }, { index: bIndex }`.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches differ in how they access and compare the `index` properties of objects within the arrays.

* Without destructuring:
	+ The `sort()` method uses a callback function that directly compares the values of individual objects' `index` properties.
	+ This approach is straightforward but may be less efficient due to the need to access nested properties.
* With destructuring:
	+ The `sort()` method uses a callback function that takes advantage of destructuring assignment to extract the `index` property from each object in a single step.
	+ This approach can be more efficient because it avoids the need for nested property access.

**Pros and Cons**

Without Destructuring:

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation
* Easy to understand and maintain

Cons:

* May be less efficient due to nested property access
* Less concise code

With Destructuring:

Pros:

* Can be more efficient because it avoids nested property access
* More concise code

Cons:

* Requires modern JavaScript features (ES6+) for destructuring assignment
* May require additional setup or explanation for maintainers without familiarity with ES6+ syntax

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The provided benchmark does not explicitly use any libraries. However, it relies on the `Math.ceil()` function, which is a built-in JavaScript function.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond ES6+-style destructuring assignment.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to sorting arrays include:

* Using `Array.prototype.sort()` with a simple callback function that compares values directly
* Using a custom sorting algorithm (e.g., quicksort, mergesort)
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `reduce()` or `map()` for array processing

However, the comparison between without and with destructuring remains a fundamental benchmark in evaluating the performance of JavaScript engines.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/90.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 90 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Access	3502.8 Ops/sec
Destruct	3514.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array sort with ot without destructuring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Access vs Destruct

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Access

Destruct

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):