Benchmark: assignments vs object creation vs early return

Script Preparation code:

var names = [
  "Olivia", "Liam", "Emma", "Noah", "Ava", "Oliver", "Sophia", "Elijah", "Isabella", "Lucas",
  "Mia", "Mason", "Amelia", "Logan", "Harper", "Ethan", "Evelyn", "Aiden", "Abigail", "James",
  "Ella", "Sebastian", "Avery", "Jackson", "Scarlett", "Alexander", "Grace", "Michael", "Chloe",
  "Benjamin", "Victoria", "Jacob", "Aria", "Carter", "Madison", "William", "Lily", "Daniel",
  "Aurora", "Matthew", "Zoey", "Henry", "Hannah", "Joseph", "Stella", "Samuel", "Natalie",
  "David", "Leah", "Wyatt"
];

Tests:

Assignmants
function getPrefix(name) { if (!name) {return ""; } let prefix = "OTHER"; let mask = "MASK"; if (name.startsWith("O")) { prefix = "SOMTHING"; mask = "NO_MASK"; } else if(name.startsWith("E")) { prefix = "WOOHOO"; mask = "RANDOM"; } const formatted = `${prefix}-${name}`; return [formatted, `${mask},${formatted}`]; } names.forEach(getPrefix);
creating object
function getPrefix(name) { if (!name) {return ""; } let config = {prefix: "OTHER", mask: "MASK"}; if (name.startsWith("O")) { config = {prefix: "SOMETHING", mask: "NO_MASK"}; } else if(name.startsWith("E")) { config = {prefix: "WOOHOO", mask: "RANDOM"}; } const formatted = `${config.prefix}-${name}`; return [formatted, `${config.mask},${formatted}`]; } names.forEach(getPrefix);
creating object and rewrite
function getPrefix(name) { if (!name) {return ""; } let config = {prefix: "OTHER", mask: "MASK"}; if (name.startsWith("O")) { config.prefix = "SOMETHING"; config.mask = "NO_MASK"; } else if(name.startsWith("E")) { config.prefix = "WOOHOO"; config.mask = "RANDOM"; } const formatted = `${config.prefix}-${name}`; return [formatted, `${config.mask},${formatted}`]; } names.forEach(getPrefix);
early return
function getPrefix(name) { if (!name) {return ""; } if (name.startsWith("O")) { const formatted = `SOMTHING-${name}`; return [formatted, `NO_MASK,${formatted}`]; } else if(name.startsWith("E")) { const formatted = `WOOHOO-${name}`; return [formatted, `RANDOM,${formatted}`]; } const formatted = `OTHER-${name}`; return [formatted, `MASK,${formatted}`]; } names.forEach(getPrefix);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Assignmants
creating object
creating object and rewrite
early return

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Assignmants	985998.7 Ops/sec
creating object	819020.4 Ops/sec
creating object and rewrite	842939.6 Ops/sec
early return	1620311.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided evaluates different methods for generating a formatted string based on whether a name starts with specific letters. There are four individual test cases that compare these methods, specifically focusing on assignments versus object creation and the use of early returns.

### Test Cases Overview

1. **Assignments**: 
   - This test case uses simple variable assignments to determine the prefix and mask based on the name's leading character. The variables `prefix` and `mask` are declared and initialized at the start, and their values are conditionally updated.
   - **Pros**: Straightforward use of variable assignment can make the code easy to read and understand.
   - **Cons**: This approach doesn't encapsulate the prefix and mask values, leading to potential repetition time-wise when managing the data structure due to updates.

2. **Creating Object**:
   - In this case, a configuration object `config` is instantiated, and its properties `prefix` and `mask` are updated based on the input name.
   - **Pros**: Using an object provides a clear structure for grouping related data (prefix and mask) together, which can be beneficial in more complex scenarios or when additional properties need to be included.
   - **Cons**: Creating a new object each time the function is called can introduce some overhead, particularly if the function is invoked frequently with similar names.

3. **Creating Object and Rewrite**:
   - Similar to the previous case, but instead of creating a new object, it modifies the properties of an existing object (`config`).
   - **Pros**: Reduces the overhead of object creation, facilitating performance when the function is run multiple times.
   - **Cons**: It may be less clear than creating a new object, especially if there are many conditional paths affecting the same object.

4. **Early Return**:
   - This implementation employs an early return strategy, which returns immediately after generating the formatted string for specific conditions before reaching the final return statement.
   - **Pros**: An early return can reduce lattice code nesting, leading to clearer code flow. It's efficient, particularly for the tests where the conditions are matched promptly.
   - **Cons**: Can lead to slightly more complex conditions as each return path needs to be considered while reading through the code.

### Benchmark Results

The results from running these benchmarks indicate the following execution speeds (Executions Per Second):

- **Early Return**: 1,620,311 executions/sec - This is the fastest due to efficient flow and reduced overhead from fewer assignments.
- **Assignments**: 985,999 executions/sec - It performs reasonably well but is slower than the early return.
- **Creating Object and Rewrite**: 842,940 executions/sec - This method introduced object modifications, which added overhead.
- **Creating Object**: 819,020 executions/sec - The slowest due to new object creation at each call, even though it maintains clearer data structure.

### Other Considerations and Alternatives

- **Maintainability**: While performance is essential, the maintainability of code is crucial, especially as projects grow. Developers should consider using the method that balances performance with code readability and maintainability.
- **Performance Profiling**: For high-performance applications, developers should profile their functions, especially when they are called frequently or in critical paths.
- **Different Approaches**: Alternatives could include using maps, or external libraries such as Lodash, which provide utility functions for data transformations but may introduce additional dependencies and overhead.

In conclusion, the exploration between various programming strategies reflects a trade-off between performance, readability, and maintainability. Each approach presented in this benchmark serves specific use cases, and choosing between them will depend on the specific contexts of the application being developed.

Related benchmarks:

assignments vs object creation vs early return (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Assignmants vs creating object vs creating object and rewrite vs early return

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Assignmants

creating object

creating object and rewrite

early return

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):