Benchmark: Object values vs _.values dom andy22334

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 = 100000 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 = 100000 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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for iterating over an array: using the `Object.values()` method and using Lodash's `_.values()` function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`Object.values()`**: This is a new ES6 spread operator that returns an array of a given object's own enumerable property values.
2. **`.values()` from Lodash library**: This is a utility function provided by the Lodash library, which extracts values from an object as an array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **`Object.values()`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Native support in modern JavaScript engines.
		- Can be more efficient since it doesn't require creating a new array or copying the original values.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly with objects that have non-enumerable properties (like getters or setters).
		- Can be slower for very large objects due to the overhead of creating an iterator.
* **`.values()` from Lodash library**:
	+ Pros:
		- Robust and reliable, even in cases where `Object.values()` might fail.
		- Can handle non-enumerable properties correctly.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires including the Lodash library, which adds extra overhead.
		- May be slower than `Object.values()` due to the additional function call.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If you're working with very large objects, you may need to benchmark each approach separately to determine which one is faster.
* **Complexity**: If your object has non-enumerable properties or complex logic, `.values()` from Lodash might be a safer choice to ensure correct behavior.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, version 4.17.5, specifically for its `_.values()` function.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches for iterating over an array.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for iterating over arrays include:

* **For...of loop**: A modern way to iterate over arrays using a loop.
* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: An older method for iterating over arrays, which can be slower than `Object.values()` or `.values()` from Lodash.
* **Manual iteration with `Array.prototype.forEach()` or `for` loop**: These methods require more code and manual management of the iteration process.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs, and the best choice depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Object values vs _.values dom andy22334 (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):