Benchmark: Loop over object: lodash.forOwn vs Object.keys().forEach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = Array.from({ length: 1000 }).map((value, i) => i).reduce((val, v) => { val[v] = v; return val; }, {})

Tests:

lodash.each
_.each(obj, function(v, k) { console.log(v, k); });
lodash.forOwn
_.forOwn(obj, function(v, k) { console.log(v, k); });
Object.keys().forEach
Object.keys(obj).forEach(function (k) { let v = obj[k]; console.log(v, k); });
for..in
for (const k in obj) { if (obj.hasOwnProperty(k)) { let v = obj[k]; console.log(v, k); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.each
lodash.forOwn
Object.keys().forEach
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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of different approaches for iterating over an object: `lodash.forOwn`, `Object.keys().forEach`, and `for..in`. Additionally, it uses the Lodash library to define a custom function `_each` and `_forOwn`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the following options:

1. **_lodash.forOwn**: A method from the Lodash library that iterates over an object using its own internal implementation.
2. **Object.keys().forEach**: A built-in JavaScript method that uses `Object.keys()` to get an array of the object's property names and then calls the provided callback function on each one, effectively iterating over the object's properties.
3. **for..in**: A traditional for loop in JavaScript that iterates over an object using its own internal implementation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **_lodash.forOwn**:
	* Pros: High-performance, concise code, easy to read and maintain.
	* Cons: Requires the Lodash library, which may not be included in all environments (e.g., older browsers).
2. **Object.keys().forEach**:
	* Pros: Standard JavaScript, widely supported across different browsers and environments.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the additional step of getting an array of property names using `Object.keys()`.
3. **for..in**:
	* Pros: Standard JavaScript, no external libraries required.
	* Cons: Can be slower than _lodash.forOwn_ due to the overhead of checking for own properties and iterating over them.

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object iteration, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to define two custom functions:

1. `_each`: Iterates over an object using its own internal implementation.
2. `_forOwn`: Iterates over an object using its own internal implementation.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

None of the tested approaches use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for iterating over objects in JavaScript include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.forEach` on an array representation of the object.
2. Using a simple loop with `in` and `hasOwnProperty`.
3. Utilizing modern ES6+ methods such as `for...of` or `reduce()`.

However, these alternatives may not be suitable for this specific benchmark due to their potential performance overhead or limitations in certain edge cases.

Related benchmarks:

Loop over object: lodash.forOwn vs Object.keys().forEach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.each vs lodash.forOwn vs Object.keys().forEach vs for..in

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.each

lodash.forOwn

Object.keys().forEach

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):