Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs Object.keys.length vs for in

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 = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 100; i < len; i++) {
  obj['key' + i] = 'value' + i;
}

function isEmpty(obj) { 
   for (let x in obj) { return false; }
   return true;
}

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.obj);
Object.keys().length
Object.keys(window.obj).length === 0;
isEmpty(window.obj)
isEmpty(window.obj)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare three approaches:

1. **_.isEmpty() (Lodash)**: This function checks if an object is empty by iterating over its keys using `for...in`. If no keys are found, it returns `true`.
2. **Object.keys().length === 0**: This checks the length of the `Object.keys()` method on the `window.obj` object. If the length is 0, it means the object is empty.
3. **for...in (custom implementation)**: The custom implementation uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the keys of the `window.obj` object and checks if any key is found.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* **Pros and Cons**
	+ _.isEmpty(): This approach is concise and easy to read, but it's also less efficient since it uses `for...in` iteration.
	+ Object.keys().length === 0: This approach is more efficient since it directly checks the length of the object's keys. However, it may have performance issues for very large objects due to memory overhead.
	+ Custom implementation (for): This approach provides more control and flexibility but is also less concise and more error-prone.

**Library used**

The benchmark uses Lodash (`_`) as a library. Lodash provides the `isEmpty` function, which is used in the first test case.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the custom implementation of the `for...in` loop uses traditional iteration, whereas some modern browsers support more efficient iteration methods like `for...of`.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark for other approaches, here are some options:

1. **Using Object.hasOwn()**: This method is similar to `Object.keys()` but provides an optimized way to check if an object has a specific property.
2. **Using Array.prototype.every()**: This method can be used to check if all properties of an object are falsy, which could be equivalent to the _.isEmpty() function.
3. **Using a custom iterator**: You could implement a custom iterator using `Iterator` and `Symbol.iterator` to iterate over the keys of an object.

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best solution will depend on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs Object.keys.length vs for in (version: 0)

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Object.keys().length

isEmpty(window.obj)

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):