Benchmark: delete abcd - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

const obj = {
  a:1,
  b:2,
  c:3
}

Tests:

a
const copyWithoutA = Object.assign({}, obj); delete copyWithoutA.a
b
const { a, ...copyWithoutA } = obj
c
const copyWithoutA = { ...obj } delete copyWithoutA.a
d
const copyWithoutA = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)); delete copyWithoutA.a

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b
c
d

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
a	3468673.0 Ops/sec
b	13492487.0 Ops/sec
c	4598229.5 Ops/sec
d	1570713.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 21 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark testing the performance of different methods for removing a property (`a`) from an object (`obj`) in JavaScript comprises four distinct approaches. Here's a breakdown of each method, along with their pros and cons:

### Options Compared

1. **Method A: `Object.assign({}, obj); delete copyWithoutA.a`**  
   - **Description**: This method uses `Object.assign` to create a shallow copy of `obj`, and then deletes the property `a` from the copied object.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Simple and straightforward for shallow copies.
     - Works well for plain objects.
   - **Cons**: 
     - Deleting properties can be slow because it changes the structure of the object, potentially leading to performance penalties.
     - Not suitable for more complex objects (like those with prototype chains).

2. **Method B: `const { a, ...copyWithoutA } = obj`**  
   - **Description**: This method uses destructuring assignment to remove the property `a` while creating a new object `copyWithoutA` that contains the remaining properties.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Concise and more readable syntax.
     - Directly captures the remaining properties without additional steps.
     - No performance penalty associated with deleting a property.
   - **Cons**: 
     - Works only for ES6+ environments; may not be compatible with older browsers without transpilation.

3. **Method C: `const copyWithoutA = { ...obj }; delete copyWithoutA.a`**  
   - **Description**: This method creates a new object using the spread operator, and then deletes the property `a`.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Uses modern ES6 syntax, very readable.
     - The spread operator offers a convenient way to shallow copy objects.
   - **Cons**: 
     - Similar to Method A, it incurs the performance penalty of deleting a property from an object, which can lead to slower execution.

4. **Method D: `const copyWithoutA = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)); delete copyWithoutA.a`**  
   - **Description**: This method serializes the object `obj` to a JSON string and then parses it back to a new object, effectively creating a deep copy. After that, the property `a` is deleted from the copied object.
   - **Pros**: 
     - It creates a deep copy, which is beneficial when dealing with nested objects.
   - **Cons**: 
     - JSON serialization has many limitations (e.g., it does not handle functions, `undefined`, or certain types like dates properly).
     - Performance-wise, it's typically the slowest method due to the overhead of serialization and deserialization.

### Benchmark Results

The benchmark results reveal the execution speed of each method, quantified in `ExecutionsPerSecond`:

- **Method B**: Destructuring assignment stands out with the highest execution speed of **13,492,487** operations per second, indicating its efficiency.
- **Method C**: Using the spread operator follows with **4,598,229** operations per second, demonstrating good performance but less efficient than destructuring.
- **Method A**: The Object.assign method performs with **3,468,673** operations per second, placing it below both destructuring and spreading.
- **Method D**: JSON serialization has the lowest performance at **1,570,713** operations per second, largely due to its complexity and scope limitations.

### Other Considerations and Alternatives

When considering alternatives, software engineers may look into:

- **Using Libraries**: Libraries like Lodash have functions (like `_.omit`) designed to create new objects without specific properties, but the performance would depend on the library's optimization. 
- **Mutations**: In scenarios where mutating the original object is acceptable, using `delete obj.a` directly may be the fastest solution, avoiding the overhead of copying.
- **Functional Programming Approaches**: Functional programming paradigms offer methods that can lead to creating immutable data structures, using libraries such as Immutable.js or Immer, which are designed for efficient updates.
- **TypeScript**: If type safety is essential, TypeScript can be leveraged alongside these techniques to define object shapes clearly.

Selecting the appropriate method largely depends on the specific application requirements, including complexity, browser compatibility, and whether performance or immutability is prioritized.

Related benchmarks:

delete abcd (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: a vs b vs c vs d

Created: 21 days ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

a

b

c

d

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 21 days ago):