Benchmark: Comparing of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};

Tests:

Lodash
_.isEmpty(obj)
Native
Object.keys(obj).length === 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Native

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.

I'll break down the benchmarking process and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this specific benchmark, we have two individual test cases: one using Lodash and another using native JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an empty object `obj` that will be used as input for both tests. The html preparation code includes a reference to the Lodash library (version 4.17.5) via a CDN link, ensuring it's loaded before running the benchmarks.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash**: This test uses the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library to check if an object is empty.
2. **Native**: This test checks if the length of the `Object.keys()` method returns 0 for an empty object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of using Lodash's `_.isEmpty` function versus native JavaScript's way of checking if an object is empty, which involves calling `Object.keys()` and checking the returned length.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash (_.isEmpty)**:
	* Pros: Convenient and readable code, decouples object emptiness check from length calculation.
	* Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to the library's execution, might not be as lightweight or efficient for very large objects.
2. **Native**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, potentially more lightweight and efficient since it only checks the object's properties.
	* Cons: Requires manual property checking (`Object.keys()`), which can be less readable and more error-prone.

**Library Used**

The `_.isEmpty` function from Lodash is used to check if an object is empty. The library provides a convenient, readable, and reusable way to perform this operation without manually writing the logic.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark uses no special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in modern JavaScript.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you need more control over the object emptiness check, consider using:

1. `Object.keys()` with conditional checking (`if (Object.keys(obj).length === 0)`).
2. Using a custom function that only checks if an object is empty (e.g., `function isEmpty(obj) { return Object.keys(obj).length === 0; }`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as readable or convenient as using Lodash's `_.isEmpty`, but they provide more control over the logic.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show:

* Chrome 101 on Linux Desktop executing the Native test at approximately 6,293,886 executions per second.
* Chrome 101 on Linux Desktop executing the Lodash test at approximately 4,430,896 executions per second.

This suggests that native JavaScript's approach might be slightly more efficient for this specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Comparing of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):