Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
native Map.size vs lodash _.isEmpty
(version: 0)
measure how bad lodash performance is to check Map emptiness
Comparing performance of:
Map.size vs _.isEmpty
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var m = new Map([ [1, 100], [2, 200], [3, 300], [4, 400], [5, 500] ]);
Tests:
Map.size
m.size
_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(m)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Map.size
_.isEmpty
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
llama3.1:latest
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the details of this benchmark. **What is being tested?** This benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to check if an empty map exists in JavaScript: 1. Using the built-in `Map` object and its `size` method (`m.size`) 2. Using the Lodash library (`.isEmpty(m)`) **What options are compared?** Two options are being compared: * **Native approach**: `m.size`, which is a built-in method of the `Map` object in JavaScript. * **Library-based approach**: `_.isEmpty(m)`, which uses the Lodash library to check if an empty map exists. **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **Native approach (`m.size`)** * Pros: + Built-in, no external dependencies + Probably optimized for performance by the browser or JavaScript engine * Cons: + May not be as widely supported in older browsers or environments 2. **Library-based approach (`_.isEmpty(m)`)** * Pros: + Widely supported across different browsers and environments, thanks to Lodash's popularity + Easy to use and understand for developers familiar with the library * Cons: + Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which may slow down page loads or affect performance in some cases **Library used:** The benchmark uses Lodash (`.isEmpty(m)`), a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functional programming helpers, including a `isEmpty` method for checking if an object (in this case, a map) is empty. **JavaScript feature or syntax:** No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The code relies on standard JavaScript and built-in methods of the `Map` object. **Other alternatives:** If you need to check if a map is empty, here are some other alternatives: * Use the simple comparison `m.size === 0` * Check for existence of any key using `if (m.has(anyKey)) { ... }` These approaches may have similar performance characteristics as the native approach or might be slightly slower due to additional operations. However, they can provide an alternative implementation that's easier to understand and maintain. **Considerations:** When comparing performance, consider the following factors: * Browser support: Are you targeting modern browsers only, or do you need to support older versions? * Library dependencies: Will adding Lodash as a dependency impact your project's performance or page loads? * Code readability: Which approach is easier for developers to understand and maintain? By considering these aspects, you can make an informed decision about which approach best suits your needs.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.map vs Lodash map
Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data
Lodash.js isEmpty vs Native on Map
native map vs lodash map on large array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?