Benchmark: Null and Empty Object check

Script Preparation code:

window.a = {};
window.b = null;
window.c = undefined;
window.d = { a: 1 };
window.e = { a: { b: 1 } };

Tests:

Object.keys
function func(val) { return val == null || (typeof val == 'object' && Object.keys(val) == 0) } func(window.a); func(window.b); func(window.c); func(window.d); func(window.e);
Lodash isEmpty
function func(val) { return _.isEmpty(val); } func(window.a); func(window.b); func(window.c); func(window.d); func(window.e);
JSON
function func(val) { return val === null || JSON.stringify(val) === '{}'; } func(window.a); func(window.b); func(window.c); func(window.d); func(window.e);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.keys
Lodash isEmpty
JSON

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 Definition**

The benchmark definition describes two functions that test if a variable is null or an empty object:

1. `func(val) { return val == null || (typeof val == 'object' && Object.keys(val) == 0) }`
2. `func(val) { return _.isEmpty(val); }` (using Lodash library)
3. `func(val) { return val === null || JSON.stringify(val) === '{}' }`

These functions check for different conditions:

* A variable being `null`.
* An object with no keys (`Object.keys(val) == 0`).
* An object that can be serialized to an empty string using `JSON.stringify()`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Using the built-in `typeof` and `Object.keys` functions.
2. **Lodash library**: Using the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library.
3. **JSON serialization**: Using the `JSON.stringify` function to check if an object can be serialized to an empty string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, no dependencies required.
	* Cons: May not work as expected for certain edge cases (e.g., NaN values).
2. **Lodash library**:
	* Pros: Robust and well-tested implementation, handles edge cases like NaN values.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (Lodash), may introduce overhead due to function call.
3. **JSON serialization**:
	* Pros: Simple and efficient way to check for empty objects.
	* Cons: May not work as expected for certain types of objects (e.g., arrays, dates).

**Library Used**

The Lodash library is used in one of the benchmark test cases (`func(window.a); func(window.e);`).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to the three approaches compared in the benchmark, other alternatives might include:

* Using a custom implementation that combines elements of each approach.
* Using other libraries (e.g., `lodash-es`) for testing purposes.
* Optimizing the code for specific use cases or platforms.

Related benchmarks:

Null and Empty Object check (version: 1)

Different functions to test if a variable is null or empty object

Comparing performance of: Object.keys vs Lodash isEmpty vs JSON

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Object.keys

Lodash isEmpty

JSON

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):