Benchmark: For In vs Object Values Count

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  'a': true,
  'b': false,
  'c': true,
  'd': true,
  'e': true,
  'f': false,
  'g': true,
};

Tests:

For IN
for (var i=10000; i > 0; i--) { let count = 0; for (var key in obj) { if (obj[key] === true) { count++; } } return count; }
Filter
for (var i=10000; i > 0; i--) { return Object.values(obj).filter(function(element) { element === true; }).length }
reduce
for (var i=10000; i > 0; i--) { return Object.values(obj).reduce((count, element) => { if (element) { count++ } return count }, []) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For IN
Filter
reduce

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to count the number of `true` values in an object: using a traditional `for...in` loop, filtering with `Array.prototype.filter()`, and reducing with `Array.prototype.reduce()`.

**Options Compared**

* **For In Loop**: Iterates over the object's properties using the `for...in` loop, which can iterate over both enumerable and non-enumerable properties. This approach is straightforward but may not be the most efficient due to potential overhead from iterating over all properties.
* **Filter Method**: Uses the `Array.prototype.filter()` method to create a new array with only the elements that pass a test (in this case, checking if the element is equal to `true`). This approach can be more efficient than the traditional loop but requires creating an intermediate array.
* **Reduce Method**: Uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to iterate over the object's values and accumulate a count. This approach can be more efficient than filtering since it avoids creating an additional array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **For In Loop**: Pros - easy to understand, straightforward implementation. Cons - may not be the most efficient due to iterating over all properties.
* **Filter Method**: Pros - efficient since it only iterates over the desired elements. Cons - requires creating an intermediate array, which can lead to memory allocation overhead.
* **Reduce Method**: Pros - efficient since it avoids creating an additional array. Cons - may require more complex implementation.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()` are standard JavaScript library methods that work across all browsers supported by MeasureThat.net.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used beyond standard JavaScript features like loops, arrays, and objects. The benchmark focuses on the performance differences between these three approaches rather than exploring more advanced JavaScript concepts.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to counting `true` values in an object might include:

* Using a `Map` instead of an array to count occurrences
* Utilizing Web Workers for parallel processing (not mentioned in the benchmark)
* Leveraging libraries like Lodash or Ramda for efficient filtering and reducing operations
* Implementing a custom iterative solution using bit manipulation techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement and may not provide significant performance improvements over the standard approaches used in the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

For In vs Object Values Count (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For IN vs Filter vs reduce

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For IN

Filter

reduce

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):