Benchmark: Filter null/undefined/empty string key values from an Object

Tests:

Using For Loop
const obj = { a: '', b: null, c: 'dog'}; for (let propName in obj) { if ( obj[propName] === null || obj[propName] === undefined || obj[propName] === '' ) { delete obj[propName]; } } // result: {c: 'dog'} console.log(obj)
Using Filter and Reduce
const obj = { a: '', b: null, c: 'dog'}; const newObj = Object.entries(obj) .filter(([key, value]) => !!value) .reduce((acc, [key, value]) => { acc[key] = value; return acc; }, {}); // result: {c: 'dog'} console.log(newObj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using For Loop
Using Filter and Reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using For Loop	191207.0 Ops/sec
Using Filter and Reduce	217021.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures how quickly two approaches can filter out null, undefined, or empty string values from an object. The approaches are:

1. Using a `for` loop
2. Using `Object.entries`, `filter`, and `reduce`

**For Loop Approach**

The first approach uses a `for` loop to iterate over the object's properties. For each property, it checks if the value is null, undefined, or an empty string. If so, it deletes the property from the object.

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Familiar syntax for most developers

Cons:

* Looping over the object's properties can be slower than using native functions like `filter` and `reduce`
* May involve more memory allocations and deallocations due to property deletions

**Filter and Reduce Approach**

The second approach uses the `Object.entries` function to get an array of key-value pairs, then applies a filter to remove null, undefined, or empty string values. The remaining pairs are reduced into a new object using `reduce`.

Pros:

* Native functions are optimized for performance
* Can take advantage of modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops (not used here) and `Map` objects

Cons:

* May be less intuitive for developers without experience with these functions
* Requires more understanding of the underlying API

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features like template literals (`\r\n`) and arrow functions (`() => {}`). However, it does not use any experimental or proposed features.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to filter out null, undefined, or empty string values from an object might include:

1. Using `Object.fromEntries` instead of `reduce`
2. Using a regular expression with the `/^./` pattern to match non-empty strings
3. Using the `filter()` method directly on the object (although this may not be supported in older browsers)

**Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider factors like:

* Performance: Native functions like `filter` and `reduce` are generally faster than using a `for` loop.
* Code readability: Choose an approach that is easy to understand and maintain.
* Browser support: Ensure the chosen approach works in all supported browsers.

In this benchmark, the `Filter and Reduce` approach appears to be the fastest, but it's essential to evaluate both approaches for your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Filter null/undefined/empty string key values from an Object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Using For Loop vs Using Filter and Reduce

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Using For Loop

Using Filter and Reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):