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

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
For in
for(var i in obj) return false; return true;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Native
For in

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three approaches to check if an object is empty:

1. **Native**: Using the `Object.keys(obj).length === 0` syntax, which checks if the length of the object's keys is 0.
2. **Lodash**: Using the `_isEmpty` function from the Lodash library, which checks if the object is empty based on its own implementation.
3. **For-in**: Using a loop with `for...in`, which iterates over the object's properties and returns `false` if any property exists.

**Options Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing these three approaches to determine which one is faster. The pros and cons of each approach are:

* **Native**: Pros:
	+ Fast, as it only requires a single operation (checking the length of the keys).
	+ Cons:
		- May not be supported in older browsers or environments.
		- Requires careful handling of edge cases (e.g., objects with non-string keys).
* **Lodash**: Pros:
	+ Robust implementation that handles various edge cases, such as null and undefined values.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds overhead due to the library's execution time.
		- May not be suitable for environments where Lodash is not available or supported.
* **For-in**: Pros:
	+ Easy to implement and understand.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower than the native approach, as it requires iterating over the object's properties.
		- Can be less reliable due to issues with property iteration order.

**Lodash Library**

The `_.isEmpty` function is a utility function from Lodash that checks if an object has any properties. It returns `true` if the object is empty and `false` otherwise. The library provides various implementations for different types of objects, including arrays, objects, and functions.

**For-in Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The `for...in` loop uses a special JavaScript feature that allows iterating over an object's properties using their property names as strings. This syntax is supported in most modern browsers and environments.

**Benchmark Preparation Code and Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark preparation code sets up an empty object `obj`. The individual test cases define three separate benchmarks:

1. `_.isEmpty(obj)`: Calls the Lodash `_isEmpty` function on the object.
2. `Object.keys(obj).length === 0`: Uses the native approach to check if the object's keys are empty.
3. `for (var i in obj) return false; return true;`: Uses a loop with `for...in` to iterate over the object's properties.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows the execution time for each test case, measured in executions per second. The fastest approach is `For-in`, followed by `Native`, and then `Lodash`. However, it's essential to note that these results may vary depending on the specific environment, browser, or version being used.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be considered:

* Using other utility functions from Lodash, such as `_size` or `_hasOwnProperty`.
* Implementing a custom check for empty objects using bitwise operations (e.g., `Object.keys(obj).length > 0 && Object.values(obj).every(value => value === undefined)`).
* Comparing the performance of other JavaScript engines or transcompilers.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native vs For in

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

For in

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):