Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs 3 array.length

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {
a: [{id: '1'},{id: '2'},{id: '3'}],
b: [{id: '4'},{id: '5'},{id: '6'}],
c: [{id: '7'},{id: '8'},{id: '9'}],
};

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.obj);
Object.keys().length
window.obj.a.length === 0 && window.obj.b.length === 0 && window.obj.c.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
Object.keys().length

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 Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case hosted on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using the `_.isEmpty()` function from the Lodash library, and checking if an array has no elements using the `length` property.

**What is being tested?**

* The first individual test case measures how fast it takes to check if a single object (`window.obj`) is empty using the `_.isEmpty()` function. This approach likely relies on the Lodash library's implementation, which might be optimized for performance.
* The second individual test case measures how fast it takes to check if three arrays have no elements by checking their lengths.

**Options compared**

There are two approaches being compared:

1. **Using `_._isEmpty()`**: This approach uses a library function that likely checks if an object is empty by verifying its properties and/or values.
2. **Checking array length**: This approach directly checks the length property of each array to verify if it has no elements.

**Pros and Cons**

* Using `_._isEmpty()`: Pros:
	+ Often faster due to optimization efforts in Lodash's implementation.
	+ Can be more concise and readable, as it encapsulates the logic for checking emptiness.
	Cons:
	+ Requires importing an external library (Lodash).
	+ May introduce additional overhead from loading and executing the library.
* Checking array length: Pros:
	+ Lightweight and doesn't require any imports or libraries.
	+ Can be easily implemented using native JavaScript syntax.
Cons:
	+ Might be slower due to the overhead of checking each element's length.
	+ Requires explicit implementation of the logic for checking emptiness.

**Lodash Library**

The `_.isEmpty()` function is part of the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript. Its purpose is to provide a convenient and efficient way to check if an object or array is empty.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the trade-offs between performance, conciseness, and overhead from external libraries. If you prioritize readability and don't mind adding extra imports, using `_._isEmpty()` might be a better choice. However, if you're looking for a lightweight solution with native JavaScript capabilities, checking array length could be the way to go.

**Alternatives**

If you're not tied to MeasureThat.net or want to explore other options, here are some alternative benchmarking frameworks:

* Node.js's built-in `benchmark` module
* Benchmark.js (a popular benchmarking library for Node.js)
* jsperf (a simple, lightweight benchmarking framework)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to choose the one that best suits your needs.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs 3 array.length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs Object.keys().length

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Object.keys().length

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):