Benchmark: Object values vs _.values dom andy22

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Tests:

Object values
const value = 10000 const findMe = value - 1; const numbers = {}; for (let i = 0; i < value; i++) { numbers[i] = i } const t = Object.values(numbers); const res = t.pop();
_.values
const value = 10000 const findMe = value - 1; const numbers = {}; for (let i = 0; i < value; i++) { numbers[i] = i } const t = Object.values(numbers); const res = t[t.length-1];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object values
_.values

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark compares two approaches to iterate over an array and extract its last element:

1. Using the new ES6 spread operator (`Object.values()`) to create an iterator and then destructure it to extract the last element.
2. Using the traditional `concat()` method with `slice()` or indexing to get the last element.

**Options compared:**

The two options being compared are:

* **`Object.values()`**: This is a new method introduced in ES6 that returns an array of values from an object. It's designed to be more efficient and concise than using `for...in` loops or other methods to iterate over an object.
* **`concat()`, `slice()`, or indexing (`[value - 1]`)**: These are traditional methods used to get the last element of an array.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **`Object.values()`**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code.
		- Often faster than traditional methods because it avoids unnecessary cloning or slicing of arrays.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work as expected if the object has non-enumerable properties.
		- Can be slower for large objects due to the overhead of creating an iterator.
* **`concat()`, `slice()`, or indexing (`[value - 1]`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established and widely supported methods.
		- Often faster than `Object.values()` because it avoids the overhead of creating an iterator.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be less concise and more verbose than `Object.values()`.
		- May require explicit type casting or indexing, which can lead to errors.

**Library used:**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library (`lodash.core.js`) to provide the `_` alias for `Object.values()`. This is done to ensure that the benchmark runs consistently across different environments and versions of JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's mentioned above. However, it's worth noting that the use of `const` and template literals (`\r\n`) is consistent with modern JavaScript best practices.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to explore other approaches for getting the last element of an array, here are some alternatives:

* Using a `for...of` loop: `for (let value of numbers) { console.log(value); }`
* Using a `map()` function with `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]`: `numbers.map((_, index) => numbers[index])`
* Using the `at()` method (if supported by your browser or environment): `numbers.at(-1)`
* Using a library like Lodash's `_.last()` method: `_._(numbers, -1)`

Related benchmarks:

Object values vs _.values dom andy22 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: Object values vs _.values

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object values

_.values

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):