Benchmark: Object.entries VS Object.keys.map 2

Script Preparation code:

function makeid() {
  var text = "";
  var possible = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789";

  for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
    text += possible.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * possible.length));

  return text;
}

window.parentObj = {};

for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
	window.parentObj[makeid()] = makeid();
}

Tests:

Object.entries
const newObj = {}; Object.entries(window.parentObj).forEach(([k, v], i) => { if ((i % 2) === 0) { newObj[k] = v; } });
Object.keys.map
const newObj = {}; Object.keys(window.parentObj).map(key => [key, window.parentObj[key]]).forEach(([k, v], i) => { if ((i % 2) === 0) { newObj[k] = v; } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.entries
Object.keys.map

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to iterate over an object:

1. `Object.entries(window.parentObj)`: This method returns an array of key-value pairs for each property in the object.
2. `Object.keys(window.parentObj).map(key => [key, window.parentObj[key]])`: This approach uses `Object.keys()` to get an array of keys and then maps over it to create an array of key-value pairs.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Approach 1: Using `Object.entries`**: This method is more concise and expressive, as it directly returns the desired output (an array of key-value pairs).
* **Approach 2: Using `Object.keys.map`**: This approach is more explicit, but requires an additional step to create the desired output.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Approach 1 (using `Object.entries`)**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive.
		- Directly returns the desired output.
	+ Cons:
		- May be less intuitive for those not familiar with this method.
* **Approach 2 (using `Object.keys.map`)**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and easier to understand.
		- Can be useful for debugging or logging purposes.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional step, making it slightly less efficient.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used. The `window.parentObj` object appears to be a custom object created for the purpose of this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript methods and constructs.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* If readability and maintainability are crucial, Approach 1 (using `Object.entries`) might be a better choice.
* If you need more control over the iteration process or want to debug/log individual iterations, Approach 2 (using `Object.keys.map`) might be a better fit.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to iterate over an object in JavaScript include:

* Using a `for...in` loop: This method is less concise than using `Object.entries` or `Object.keys.map`, but can be more readable for some developers.
* Using the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method with an array of keys: Similar to Approach 2, this method requires creating an array of keys first.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches to iterate over an object in JavaScript: using `Object.entries` versus using `Object.keys.map`. The choice between these approaches depends on trade-offs between conciseness, expressiveness, and control.

Related benchmarks:

Object.entries VS Object.keys.map 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.entries vs Object.keys.map

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.entries

Object.keys.map

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):