Benchmark: Testing string for one of multiple substring

Script Preparation code:

window.productNames = {
  ATOM_HOME_FULL: 'string',
  ATOM_HOME_SHORT: 'string',
  ATOM_SCHOOL_FULL: 'string',
  ATOM_SCHOOL_SHORT: 'string'
}

Tests:

Object.keys
Object.keys(window.productNames).some(name => name.includes('SCHOOL'))
for in
for (key in window.productNames) { window.productNames[key].includes('SCHOOL') }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.keys
for in

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, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two JavaScript methods: `Object.keys()` and `for...in` loop with object iteration. The script preparation code initializes an object `window.productNames` with multiple properties containing strings that include a specific substring ("SCHOOL").

**Script Preparation Code**

```javascript
window.productNames = {
  ATOM_HOME_FULL: 'string',
  ATOM_HOME_SHORT: 'string',
  ATOM_SCHOOL_FULL: 'string',
  ATOM_SCHOOL_SHORT: 'string'
}
```

This code creates an object with four properties, each containing a string. The strings contain the substring "SCHOOL", which is used to test the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, so we'll focus on the JavaScript aspects of the benchmark.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Object.keys()**
```javascript
Object.keys(window.productNames).some(name => name.includes('SCHOOL'))
```

This code uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of property names from the `window.productNames` object and then uses the `some()` method to check if any of those properties include the substring "SCHOOL".

2. **for...in loop**
```javascript
for (key in window.productNames) {
  window.productNames[key].includes('SCHOOL')
}
```

This code uses a traditional `for...in` loop to iterate over the properties of the `window.productNames` object and checks if each property value includes the substring "SCHOOL".

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Object.keys() with some()**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive code
		+ Faster iteration due to the use of `some()`
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead for iterating over properties (due to the use of `some()`)
2. **for...in loop**
	* Pros:
		+ More traditional and familiar syntax for many developers
		+ Can be more efficient for older browsers that don't support `Object.keys()`
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise code
		+ May have higher overhead due to the use of the loop and iteration

**Library**

The benchmark uses no external libraries, relying solely on standard JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two basic iteration methods.

**Other Alternatives**

For comparison purposes, other alternatives could be:

1. **Array.prototype.filter()**: `window.productNames.keys().filter(name => name.includes('SCHOOL')).length > 0`
2. **forEach()**: `for (key in window.productNames) { if (window.productNames[key].includes('SCHOOL')) console.log(key); }`

However, these alternatives would likely have similar performance characteristics to the original `Object.keys()` and `for...in` loop methods.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance of two iteration methods in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Testing string for one of multiple substring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.keys vs for in

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.keys

for in

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):