Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Objekt je prázdný? 3
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
.length vs Boolean
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
xxx = {}
Tests:
.length
Object.keys(xxx).length !== 0
Boolean
Boolean(Object.keys(xxx)[0])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
.length
Boolean
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 120 on Android
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=496253" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
.length
2.9M/s
Boolean
2.0M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
.length
2,867,764 Ops/sec
Boolean
1,960,172 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. In this case, we have two test cases: 1. "Object.keys(xxx).length !== 0" 2. "Boolean(Object.keys(xxx)[0])" These test cases are designed to measure the performance of JavaScript's `Object.keys()` and `Boolean` functions. **Options Compared** The options being compared in this benchmark are: * `xxx`: An empty object. * `.length`: The length property of an array or string. * `Boolean`: A boolean value. The comparison is done by testing the execution time of each option. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster and more efficient. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief analysis of the pros and cons of each approach: 1. `xxx = {}`: * Pros: This approach creates an empty object, which is a common use case in JavaScript. * Cons: Creating an object can be expensive, especially if it's done frequently. 2. `.length`: This option uses the length property of an array or string to measure performance. It's likely to be faster than creating an object because it avoids the overhead of object creation and manipulation. 3. `Boolean`: * Pros: This approach is simple and straightforward, making it easy to understand and test. * Cons: The execution time may be higher due to the overhead of creating a boolean value. **Library and Purpose** The benchmark doesn't explicitly mention any libraries being used. However, it's likely that MeasureThat.net uses some internal library or framework to execute the benchmarks and collect data. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern browsers. It only relies on standard JavaScript constructs like objects, arrays, strings, and boolean values. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in running this benchmark or exploring other benchmarks on MeasureThat.net, here are some alternatives: 1. **Benchmarking Frameworks**: Measuratest.net provides its own benchmarking framework that allows you to write custom benchmarks. 2. **JavaScript Benchmarking Tools**: Other tools like JSPerf, Benchmark.js, and micro-benchmark provide similar functionality for running JavaScript benchmarks. 3. **Browser-specific Benchmarks**: Some browsers, like Chrome or Firefox, have their own benchmarking tools that allow you to run browser-specific benchmarks. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to MeasureThat.net's framework, but they can still help you explore and measure the performance of your JavaScript code.
Related benchmarks
check Replace on number format
IndexOf vs Includes in string - larger string edition
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?