Benchmark: destructuring X undefined X null X delete X new reference

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;
Null
const user = { email: '123@email.com', password: 'AA&Â&A*&AA' }; user.password = null;
Delete
const user = { email: '123@email.com', password: 'AA&Â&A*&AA' }; delete user.password;
New reference
const user = { email: '123@email.com', password: 'AA&Â&A*&AA' }; const toBeReturned = {email: user.email};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destructuring
Undefined
Null
Delete
New reference

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is a simple object that contains metadata about the test case:
```json
{
  "Name": "destructuring X undefined X null X delete X new reference",
  "Description": null,
  "Script Preparation Code": null,
  "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```
This definition specifies the name of the benchmark, but not much else. It seems to be a placeholder for more detailed information that is not provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are defined in an array:
```json
[
  {
    "Benchmark Definition": "const user = { \r\n  email: '123@email.com',\r\n  password: 'AA&Â&A*&AA'\r\n};\r\n\r\nconst {password, toBeReturned} = user;",
    "Test Name": "Destructuring"
  },
  // ...
]
```
Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` string that describes the JavaScript code being tested. Let's analyze each test case:

1. **Destructuring**: This test case deconstructs an object with two properties: `email` and `password`. The `{password, toBeReturned} = user;` expression extracts only the `password` property from the object.
2. **Undefined**: This test case sets the value of the `password` property to `undefined`.
3. **Null**: This test case sets the value of the `password` property to `null`.
4. **Delete**: This test case deletes the `password` property from the object using the `delete user.password;` statement.
5. **New reference**: This test case creates a new object with only the `email` property, which is set to the original object's `email` value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark seems to compare different approaches to working with objects and properties:

* Destructuring vs. accessing individual properties
* Setting properties to `undefined` or `null`
* Deleting properties from an object
* Creating new references to objects

These comparisons aim to measure the performance of each approach in a controlled environment.

**Pros and Cons**

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages:

* **Destructuring**: Pros: concise, expressive, and efficient. Cons: may be slower due to the overhead of the destructuring syntax.
* **Accessing individual properties**: Pros: simple, predictable, and fast. Cons: may require more code and can be less readable.
* **Setting properties to `undefined` or `null`**: Pros: cheap operation, easy to implement. Cons: may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.
* **Deleting properties from an object**: Pros: efficient way to free up memory. Cons: may cause unexpected side effects if not handled carefully.
* **Creating new references to objects**: Pros: creates a new copy of the original object, preserving its integrity. Cons: can be slower and more memory-intensive.

**Special JavaScript Features**

The benchmark uses the following special JavaScript features:

* Destructuring assignment ( `{password, toBeReturned} = user;` )
* Nullish coalescing operator (`??` or `?:`) is not used in this benchmark
* The `delete` statement is used to delete properties from an object.

**Other Alternatives**

If MeasureThat.net were to extend its benchmarks, it could consider adding more test cases that explore other aspects of JavaScript, such as:

* Function calls and closures
* Loops and iteration
* Async programming (e.g., promises, async/await)
* Object creation and manipulation (e.g., using constructors or object literals)
* Error handling and try-catch blocks

By expanding its benchmark suite, MeasureThat.net could provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript's performance characteristics and help developers optimize their code for better performance.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.89 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Destructuring	548072384.0 Ops/sec
Undefined	2872549.2 Ops/sec
Null	559676544.0 Ops/sec
Delete	11335317.0 Ops/sec
New reference	561950144.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

destructuring X undefined X null X delete X new reference (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Destructuring vs Undefined vs Null vs Delete vs New reference

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destructuring

Undefined

Null

Delete

New reference

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):