Benchmark: Object Keys vs Entries

Tests:

Keys
const test = { level_id_1: true, level_id_2: true, level_id_3: null, }; Boolean(!Object.keys(test).find(keys => test[keys] === null));
Entries
const test = { level_id_1: true, level_id_2: true, level_id_3: null, }; Boolean(!Object.entries(test).find(entry => entry[1] === null));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Keys
Entries

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 what's being tested in this benchmark and the options being compared.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance difference between using `Object.keys()` and `Object.entries()` to iterate over an object. Specifically, it's checking which approach is faster when searching for a null value within the object's entries or keys.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Object.keys()**: This method returns an array of strings representing the available keys in the object.
2. **Object.entries()**: This method returns an array of [key, value] pairs from the object.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Object.keys()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster iteration over keys, as it only needs to iterate over the key strings themselves.
		+ Can be more efficient for large objects with sparse properties (i.e., most keys are missing).
	* Cons:
		+ May have a slight overhead due to string manipulation and array creation.
2. **Object.entries()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster iteration over entries, as it needs to iterate over the actual key-value pairs.
		+ Can be more convenient for tasks that require direct access to both keys and values.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower for large objects with sparse properties, due to the need to access each property individually.

**Library/Feature:**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `Object.entries()` was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), so this benchmark is likely testing performance on modern JavaScript engines.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that `const` and template literals (`\r\n`) are relatively modern JavaScript features introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to compare these approaches on older JavaScript engines or for specific use cases, you could consider alternative methods:

* For iterating over keys:
	+ `for...in` loop
	+ `Object.keys()` with a loop to iterate over the key array
* For iterating over entries:
	+ `for...in` loop on the object itself (not recommended)
	+ Looping through the `Object.entries()` array directly

However, keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or concise as using `Object.keys()` or `Object.entries()`.

Related benchmarks:

Object Keys vs Entries (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Keys vs Entries

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Keys

Entries

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):