Despite copying a struct with several fields is slower than copying a pointer to the same struct, returning a struct value may be faster than returning a pointer if we consider escape analysis particularities.

Returning structs allows the compiler to detect that the created data does not escape the function scope and decides to allocate the memory in the stack, where the allocation and deallocation is very cheap if compared to managing memory in the heap.

Toy Scenario

Let's consider a machine to create Donuts with diversity of sizes, shapes and ingredients:

type Donut struct {
    Radius     float32
    Thick      float32
    Toppings   []string
    GlutenFree bool
    Hole       bool
    Filling    string

In a 64-bit machine, the above struct would have a minimum size of 4+4+16+1+1+12 = 38 bytes, and I emphasize minimum because some implementations of Go could decide to, e.g. use bigger data structures for booleans or slice/string metadata.

Considering that a 64-bit pointer (8 bytes) is several times smaller than 38 bytes, one may think that the following factory function:

func RandomDonut() *Donut

Should be faster than an analogue function that returns a copy of the Donut:

func RandomDonut() Donut

Experiment 1: benchmarking

Given the following function:

const maxToppings = 3

var radiuses = []float32{5, 10, 15}
var thicks   = []float32{2, 3, 4}
var toppings = []string{"Chocolate", "Nuts", "Sugar", "Caramel"}
var fillings = []string{"", "Mermelade", "Chocolate", "Cream"}

var rnd = rand.New(rand.NewSource(321))

func RandomDonut() *Donut {
    d := Donut{
        Radius: radiuses[rnd.Intn(len(radiuses))],
        Thick:  thicks[rnd.Intn(len(radiuses))],
    if rnd.Int()%2 == 0 {
        d.GlutenFree = true
    } else {
        d.GlutenFree = false
    if rnd.Int()%2 == 0 {
        d.Hole = true
    } else {
        d.Hole = false
        d.Filling = fillings[rnd.Intn(len(fillings))]
    numToppints := rnd.Intn(maxToppings)
    d.Toppings = make([]string, 0, maxToppings)
    for i := 0; i < numToppints; i++ {
        d.Toppings = append(d.Toppings,
    return &d

, and an analogue func RandomDonut() Donut function that is exactly equal to the above function, but returning the Donut by value; we have benchmarked and traced both versions:

func BenchmarkSweets(b *testing.B) {
    for n := 0; n < b.N; n++ {

For this particular function, returning a value instead to a pointer makes the operation time decrease by 16%, as the following graph shows (lower is better):

Returning pointers: 275 ns/op. Returning values: 231 ns/op

Of course the difference may be different depending on the size of the struct or the total execution time of the function.

Experiment 2: tracing

The above benchmarks have been repeated and executed during 5 seconds with the -trace option enabled. To allow us inspect the trace with go tool trace tool (see above screenshot).

The Go trace tool

The inspection of the go trace tool shown that the number of invocations to the Garbage Collector is cut down by 50%, and the time during which the Garbage Collector is running is cut in a similar proportion.

Returning values reduce GC activity almost by 50%

These results also would vary on other functions. The example function generates a small amount of heap memory to store the Donut toppings.


(Please refer to the TL;DR in the beginning of this entry 😇)

Next steps