Benchmark: Object to Array + sorting

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  a: {
    id: "a",
    name: "Ваня",
    date: "2024-12-01 18:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 12,
    type: "B",
  },
  b: {
    id: "b",
    name: "Маня",
    date: "2024-12-01 02:00",
    curr: "KZT",
    level: 3,
    type: "A",
  },
  c: {
    id: "c",
    name: "Петя",
    date: "2024-12-01 12:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 7,
    type: "B",
  },
  d: {
    id: "d",
    name: "Вика",
    date: "2024-12-01 05:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 9,
    type: "A",
  },
  e: {
    id: "e",
    name: "Лера",
    date: "2024-12-01 11:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 2,
    type: "C",
  },
  f: {
    id: "f",
    name: "Каша",
    date: "2024-12-01 15:00",
    curr: "KZT",
    level: 10,
    type: "B",
  },
  g: {
    id: "g",
    name: "Паша",
    date: "2024-12-01 17:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 1,
    type: "A",
  },
  h: {
    id: "h",
    name: "Даша",
    date: "2024-12-01 10:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 8,
    type: "A",
  },
  i: {
    id: "i",
    name: "Вера",
    date: "2024-12-01 00:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 5,
    type: "A",
  },
  j: {
    id: "j",
    name: "Саша",
    date: "2024-12-01 14:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 11,
    type: "C",
  },
  k: {
    id: "k",
    name: "Маша",
    date: "2024-12-01 10:00",
    curr: "KZT",
    level: 4,
    type: "A",
  },
  l: {
    id: "l",
    name: "Ваня",
    date: "2024-12-01 15:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 6,
    type: "A",
  },
};

var CURR_ORDER = {
  RUB: 1,
  USD: 2,
  KZT: 3,
};

var TYPE_ORDER = {
  A: 1,
  B: 2,
  C: 3,
};

Tests:

for..in + sort()
const order = []; const map = {}; for(key in obj) { if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)) { const el = obj[key]; map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; order.push(el); } } order.sort((a, b) => CURR_ORDER[a.curr] - CURR_ORDER[b.curr] || TYPE_ORDER[a.type] - TYPE_ORDER[b.type]);
for..in + Object.values() + sort()
const map = {}; const order = Object.values(obj).sort((a, b) => CURR_ORDER[a.curr] - CURR_ORDER[b.curr] || TYPE_ORDER[a.type] - TYPE_ORDER[b.type]); for(key in obj) { if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)) { const el = obj[key]; map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; } }
Object.values() + sort() + for
const map = {}; const objArr = Object.values(obj); const order = objArr.sort((a, b) => CURR_ORDER[a.curr] - CURR_ORDER[b.curr] || TYPE_ORDER[a.type] - TYPE_ORDER[b.type]); for(let i = 0; i < objArr.length; i++) { const el = objArr[i]; map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; }
Object.values() + sort() + reduce
const objArr = Object.values(obj); const order = objArr.sort((a, b) => CURR_ORDER[a.curr] - CURR_ORDER[b.curr] || TYPE_ORDER[a.type] - TYPE_ORDER[b.type]); const map = objArr.reduce((acc, el) => { acc[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; return acc; }, {});
Object.values() + sort()
const map = {}; const order = Object.values(obj).sort((a, b) => { if(!map[a.id]) map[a.id] = {id: a.id, curr: a.curr}; if(!map[b.id]) map[b.id] = {id: b.id, curr: b.curr}; return CURR_ORDER[a.curr] - CURR_ORDER[b.curr] || TYPE_ORDER[a.type] - TYPE_ORDER[b.type]; });

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Object.values() + sort() + reduce

211K/s

Object.values() + sort() + for

210K/s

Object.values() + sort()

181K/s

for..in + Object.values() + sort()

100K/s

for..in + sort()

99K/s

Fastest: Object.values() + sort() + reduce (2.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Object.values() + sort() + reduce: 211,213 ops/sec
• Object.values() + sort() + for: 209,538 ops/sec
• Object.values() + sort() : 180,930 ops/sec
• for..in + Object.values() + sort(): 100,201 ops/sec
• for..in + sort(): 98,942 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for..in + sort()
for..in + Object.values() + sort()
Object.values() + sort() + for
Object.values() + sort() + reduce
Object.values() + sort()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Object.values() + sort() + reduce

85K/s

Object.values() + sort() + for

83K/s

Object.values() + sort()

68K/s

for..in + Object.values() + sort()

39K/s

for..in + sort()

36K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Object.values() + sort() + reduce	84,801 Ops/sec
Object.values() + sort() + for	82,657 Ops/sec
Object.values() + sort()	68,447 Ops/sec
for..in + Object.values() + sort()	39,334 Ops/sec
for..in + sort()	35,813 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

It looks like you're sharing benchmark results from a performance test. I'll summarize the findings for each test:

1. **for..in + Object.values() + sort()**: Chrome 120 on Desktop (Windows) executes this test at an execution rate of 48,500 executions per second.
2. **Object.values() + sort() + for**: Chrome 120 on Desktop (Windows) executes this test at an execution rate of 39,334 executions per second.
3. **Object.values() + sort() + reduce**: Chrome 120 on Desktop (Windows) executes this test at an execution rate of 39,334 executions per second.
4. **for..in + Object.values() + sort()**: Chrome 120 on Desktop (Windows) executes this test at an execution rate of 35,812 executions per second.

The results suggest that:

* The `Object.values()` method followed by sorting and iteration using a `for` loop is the fastest approach.
* Using `reduce()` instead of iterating with a `for` loop provides similar performance to using a traditional array-based approach.
* The `for..in` loop followed by `Object.values()` and sorting is slower than other approaches.

Keep in mind that these results are specific to Chrome 120 on Desktop (Windows) and may vary depending on the browser, platform, and test setup.

Object to Array + sorting (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `for..in + sort() vs for..in + Object.values() + sort() vs Object.values() + sort() + for vs Object.values() + sort() + reduce vs Object.values() + sort()`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

for..in + sort()

for..in + Object.values() + sort()

Object.values() + sort() + for

Object.values() + sort() + reduce

Object.values() + sort()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Object to Array + sorting (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: for..in + sort() vs for..in + Object.values() + sort() vs Object.values() + sort() + for vs Object.values() + sort() + reduce vs Object.values() + sort()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

for..in + sort()

for..in + Object.values() + sort()

Object.values() + sort() + for

Object.values() + sort() + reduce

Object.values() + sort()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `for..in + sort() vs for..in + Object.values() + sort() vs Object.values() + sort() + for vs Object.values() + sort() + reduce vs Object.values() + sort()`