Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash isEmpty vs Object.entries().length
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash isEmpty vs Object.keys().length
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
Lodash isEmpty
const data = {} console.log(_.isEmpty(data))
Object.keys().length
const data = {} console.log(Object.entries(data).length > 0)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Lodash isEmpty
Object.keys().length
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):
I'd be happy to help explain what's being tested in the MeasureThat.net benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different approaches: using the `lodash.isEmpty` function and using the `Object.entries()` method with a conditional statement to check if an object is empty. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **Lodash isEmpty**: This approach uses the `lodash.isEmpty` function, which takes an object as input and returns a boolean indicating whether the object is empty or not. 2. **Object.keys().length**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of keys in the object, and then checks if the length of that array is greater than 0. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Lodash isEmpty**: * Pros: It's a single function call, which can be more efficient in terms of execution time. * Cons: It requires including an additional library (lodash) and may not be as intuitive for some developers who are not familiar with it. 2. **Object.keys().length**: * Pros: It's a built-in method that doesn't require any additional libraries, making it more accessible to developers without lodash. * Cons: It requires two function calls (one for `Object.keys()` and one for the conditional statement), which can be slower than a single call. **Other Considerations** * Both approaches assume that an empty object is considered "empty" if its only key-value pair has no value. This might not be the case in all scenarios, especially with more complex objects or data structures. * The benchmark doesn't account for the fact that `Object.keys()` returns an array of keys, which may not be what you want if you're trying to check if an object is empty. **Library Used** In this benchmark, the library used is Lodash. Specifically, it's used in the line `const data = {}; console.log(_.isEmpty(data))`. Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and object manipulation. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a simple, straightforward comparison between two existing methods in the standard JavaScript API. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options: * Using `Object.keys()` and checking if the resulting array is empty using `length === 0` * Using a custom implementation of an "is-empty" function * Using a different library or framework that provides an optimized implementation for this use case Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.
Related benchmarks:
isEmpty vs Object.keys
Native array length vs Lodash's isEmpty
Lodash IsEmpty for objects
Comparing performance of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty v2
Lodash isEmpty vs Native Javascript
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?