How OpenStruct Can Kill Performance

An OpenStruct is around 10x slower to initialize than a Struct. That was the surprising result of this benchmark where we pitted structs vs classes vs hashes vs OpenStruct. Hashes didn't do much better.

We Rubyists love our hashes.  But hashes have a few well known flaws. As Richard pointed out in Hashie Considered Harmful, they can be TOO flexible at times - a quick typo and you can assign and reference keys that you never intended.

a = { type: "F150" }
a[:typo] # nil

Some Common Hash Alternatives

If you're using hashes to store actual structured data, you may decide that you don't really need flexibility. That it's only going to get you into trouble.

There are a few alternatives. Imagine that you need to store a pair of XY coordinates. One approach might be to define a class, whose only job is to hold a pair of XY coordinates.

class PointClass # I don't recommend ending class names with Class :) 
  attr_accessor :x, :y
  def initialize(args)
    @x = args.fetch(:x)
    @y = args.fetch(:y)

point_class = 1, y: 2)
point_class.x # 1

Since in this case we only need to encapsulate data, a more concise choice might be to use a Struct. Here's what that looks like:

PointStruct =, :y)

point_struct =, 2)
point_struct.x # 1

A third option might be to use OpenStruct. OpenStruct looks kind of like a struct, but lets you set arbitrary values like a hash. Here's an example:

point_os = 1, y: 2)

point_os.x # 1

Performance Implications

[UPDATE 7/10/2015: It appears that my benchmarking script was unfair to hashes. As Patrick Helm pointed out, I was using an inefficient method of initializing them. So please disregard the results for hashes. Though my main point about openstruct being super slow is still valid. You can see his changes to my benchmark script here]

Looking at these four options, I began to wonder what the performance implications were. It's pretty obvious that any of these options is fast enough if you're only dealing with a little bit of data. But if you have thousands or millions of items to process, then the performance impact of a hash vs OpenStruct vs struct vs class could begin to matter.

At Honeybadger, we have thousands of exceptions being reported to our API each second, so understanding performance implications like this is always on our minds.

So, I wrote a simple benchmark script. I like to use the benchmark-ips gem for experiments like this because it automatically figures out a good sample size, and reports standard deviation.


When I benchmarked initialization times for PointClass, PointStruct, Hash, and OpenStruct I found that PointClass and PointStruct were the clear winners. They were about 10x faster than OpenStruct, and about 2x faster than the hash.


PointClass and PointStruct were nearly 10x faster than OpenStruct PointClass and PointStruct were nearly 10x faster than OpenStruct

These results make sense. Structs are the simplest, so they're fastest. OpenStruct is the most complex (it's a wrapper for Hash) so it's the slowest. However the magnitude of the difference in speed is kind of surprising.

After running this experiment, I'd be really hesitant to use OpenStruct in any code where speed is a concern. And I'll be casting a wary eye at any hashes that I see in performance-critical code.

Read / Write

Unlike initialization, all four options are roughly the same when it comes to setting and accessing values.


Reading and writing benchmarks show no huge difference between Struct, class, hash and OpenStruct Reading and writing benchmarks show no huge difference between Struct, class, hash and OpenStruct

The Benchmarking Script

If you'd like to run the benchmark on your own system, you can use the script below. I ran it on MRI 2.1 on OSX. If you're curious about performance on other ruby interpreters, Michael Cohen has created an awesome gist with results for MRI 2.2, JRuby and others.

require 'benchmark/ips'
require 'ostruct'

data = { x: 100, y: 200 }

PointStruct =, :y)

class PointClass
  attr_accessor :x, :y
  def initialize(args)
    @x = args.fetch(:x)
    @y = args.fetch(:y)

puts "\n\nINITIALIZATION =========="

Benchmark.ips do |x|"PointStruct") {, 200) }"PointClass") { }"Hash") { }"OpenStruct") { }

puts "\n\nREAD =========="

point_struct =, 200)
point_class =
point_hash =
point_open_struct =

Benchmark.ips do |x|"PointStruct") { point_struct.x }"PointClass") {  point_class.x }"Hash") { point_hash.fetch(:x) }"OpenStruct") {  point_open_struct.x }

puts "\n\nWRITE =========="

Benchmark.ips do |x|"PointStruct") { point_struct.x = 1 }"PointClass") {  point_class.x = 1 }"Hash") { point_hash[:x] = 1 }"OpenStruct") {  point_open_struct.x = 1 }

What to do next:
  1. Try Honeybadger for FREE
    Honeybadger helps you find and fix errors before your users can even report them. Get set up in minutes and check monitoring off your to-do list.
    Start free trial
    Easy 5-minute setup — No credit card required
  2. Get the Honeybadger newsletter
    Each month we share news, best practices, and stories from the DevOps & monitoring community—exclusively for developers like you.
    author photo

    Starr Horne

    Starr Horne is a Rubyist and Chief JavaScripter at When she's not neck-deep in other people's bugs, she enjoys making furniture with traditional hand-tools, reading history and brewing beer in her garage in Seattle.

    More articles by Starr Horne
    Stop wasting time manually checking logs for errors!

    Try the only application health monitoring tool that allows you to track application errors, uptime, and cron jobs in one simple platform.

    • Know when critical errors occur, and which customers are affected.
    • Respond instantly when your systems go down.
    • Improve the health of your systems over time.
    • Fix problems before your customers can report them!

    As developers ourselves, we hated wasting time tracking down errors—so we built the system we always wanted.

    Honeybadger tracks everything you need and nothing you don't, creating one simple solution to keep your application running and error free so you can do what you do best—release new code. Try it free and see for yourself.

    Start free trial
    Simple 5-minute setup — No credit card required

    Learn more

    "We've looked at a lot of error management systems. Honeybadger is head and shoulders above the rest and somehow gets better with every new release."
    — Michael Smith, Cofounder & CTO of YvesBlue

    Honeybadger is trusted by top companies like:

    “Everyone is in love with Honeybadger ... the UI is spot on.”
    Molly Struve, Sr. Site Reliability Engineer, Netflix
    Start free trial