Benchmark: Defining consts vs putting directly to object result

Tests:

Assigning directly
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] const newArr = arr.map(num => ({ cube: num * num * num, square: num * num, orig: num, }))
Using variables
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] const newArr = arr.map(num => { const cube = num * num * num const square = num * num const orig = num return { cube, square, orig } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Assigning directly
Using variables

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, and it's designed to compare two different approaches for creating an array of objects.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is testing the performance difference between defining constants (`const`) versus directly assigning values to object properties when creating a new array of objects.

In other words, the test case compares:

1. **Defining constants**: Using `const` to define variables and then using those variables to create an array of objects.
2. **Direct assignment**: Directly assigning values to object properties without defining intermediate variables.

**Options compared:**

*   Defining constants (`const`) vs direct assignment
*   Using a single variable to hold multiple values (in the "Using variables" approach) vs directly assigning each value to an object property

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

*   **Defining constants**: Pros:
    *   More readable code (as it's easier to understand that `cube`, `square`, and `orig` are related)
    *   Less prone to typos or mistakes
Cons:
    *   May introduce unnecessary overhead due to the creation of intermediate variables
*   **Direct assignment**: Pros:
    *   Less overhead due to fewer operations (directly assigning each value to an object property is simpler)
    *   Faster execution (potentially faster)
Cons:
    *   More prone to typos or mistakes (it's easier to accidentally assign the wrong value to a property)
    *   Less readable code (as it's harder to understand that `cube`, `square`, and `orig` are related)

**Library/feature usage:**

There is no explicit library or feature being used in this benchmark. However, it does rely on JavaScript's built-in `const` keyword for defining constants.

**Special JS features/syntax:**

This test case uses a common JavaScript pattern known as the "object destructuring" feature (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). The "Using variables" approach utilizes object destructuring to extract values from an object. However, since the `const` keyword is also used for defining constants, the main focus of this benchmark isn't on object destructuring specifically.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to modify or extend this benchmark, some alternative approaches could be:

*   Adding a third option that uses a different data structure (e.g., using an array comprehension or a `map` with a function)
*   Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or versions
*   Including additional variables or complex calculations within the mapping function to better capture performance differences in real-world scenarios

By understanding these aspects, developers can use this benchmark as a starting point for their own microbenchmarking efforts and make more informed decisions about code optimization.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/66.0.3359.139 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 66 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Assigning directly	7494743.5 Ops/sec
Using variables	7357516.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Defining consts vs putting directly to object result (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Assigning directly vs Using variables

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Assigning directly

Using variables

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):