Benchmark: Fastest way to check if object is empty - four way

Script Preparation code:

var xxx = {}

function isEmptyCheck(b) {
  for (const a in b) {
    return false;
  }
  return true;
}

Tests:

object.keys()
Object.keys(xxx) === 0
JSON.stringify()
JSON.stringify(xxx) === "{}"
for...in
for (const a in xxx) { return false; } return true;
function call
isEmptyCheck(xxx);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object.keys()
JSON.stringify()
for...in
function call

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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the fastest way to check if an object is empty. The test uses four different approaches:

1. `object.keys()`
2. `JSON.stringify()`
3. `for...in` loop
4. calling a custom function (`isEmptyCheck()`)

**Comparison of Approaches**

Each approach has its pros and cons:

1. **`object.keys()`**: This method returns an array of the object's own enumerable property names. If the object is empty, the array will be empty. This approach is concise and easy to read.
	* Pros: Fast, readable, and straightforward.
	* Cons: May not be the fastest for very large objects.
2. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This method converts the object to a JSON string, which can be an indicator of its emptiness (an empty string). However, this approach may not work as expected with certain types of objects or in certain browsers.
	* Pros: Simple and easy to implement.
	* Cons: May not be accurate for all cases, and can be slower due to the string conversion.
3. **`for...in` loop**: This loop iterates over the object's own enumerable property names. If the object is empty, the loop will exit early. However, this approach may be slower than `object.keys()` because it involves more iterations.
	* Pros: More flexible and can handle non-enumerable properties.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the extra iteration.
4. **`function call`**: This approach calls a custom function (`isEmptyCheck()`) that checks if the object is empty by iterating over its property names using `for...in`. This approach requires defining an additional function.
	* Pros: More flexible and can handle complex logic within the custom function.
	* Cons: Requires additional code and may be slower due to the function call overhead.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses a simple JavaScript object (`xxx`) as a test subject. The `JSON.stringify()` approach uses the built-in `JSON` object, which is part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the approaches rely on special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered basic for the purpose of this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other possible approaches to check if an object is empty might include:

1. **Using `Object.isEmpty()`**: If a custom implementation of `Object.isEmpty()` were available, it could be used instead of defining the custom function.
2. **Using `Array.isArray()` and `[].length === 0`**: This approach would involve checking if the object can be converted to an array and if its length is zero.
3. **Using `Map` or `Set` objects**: If the object is a Map or Set, it's likely empty.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might have different performance characteristics or requirements depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Fastest way to check if object is empty - four way (version: 0)

You don't need to make add for loops in your test scenarios, the benchmark does it itself.

Comparing performance of: object.keys() vs JSON.stringify() vs for...in vs function call

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object.keys()

JSON.stringify()

for...in

function call

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):