Benchmark: lodash.keys [4.17.11] vs Object.keys

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = {a: 30310, b: 100303, c: 3040494};

Tests:

native
Object.keys(value)
lodash
_.keys(value)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website `MeasureThat.net` provides a JSON file that defines a benchmark between two approaches: using native JavaScript (`Object.keys`) versus using a third-party library (`lodash.keys`). The specific versions used are 4.17.11 for `lodash.js`.

**What is being tested?**

In this benchmark, we're testing the performance of:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Using the built-in `Object.keys` method to iterate over an object's keys.
2. **Lodash library**: Using the `_.keys` function from the Lodash library to achieve the same result as native JavaScript.

**Options compared**

The main difference between these two approaches is the overhead introduced by using a third-party library:

* Native JavaScript: This approach relies on built-in functions and does not require any additional dependencies or libraries. It's typically faster since it doesn't introduce any extra overhead.
* Lodash library: This approach uses a separate library that provides a convenient way to achieve similar results. While this can simplify code, it may come with performance penalties due to the additional overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

* Native JavaScript:
	+ Pros: Typically faster, simpler codebase, no dependency on an external library.
	+ Cons: May not be as concise or readable for complex use cases.
* Lodash library:
	+ Pros: Provides a convenient way to simplify code, can make it more readable and maintainable.
	+ Cons: May introduce performance overhead due to the additional dependency.

**Special JavaScript feature**

In this benchmark, we don't see any special JavaScript features being used (e.g., async/await, destructuring, etc.). The code is straightforward and relies on basic object iteration methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare a different approach for key iteration, some other options could be:

* Using `for...in` loop: This would involve using a traditional `for` loop with the `in` keyword to iterate over an object's keys.
* Using `Array.prototype.keys()`: If you're working with arrays or objects that have an array-like interface, this method might be faster.

However, in modern JavaScript development, native methods like `Object.keys()` and Lodash functions are usually preferred due to their conciseness and readability.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

lodash.keys [4.17.11] vs Object.keys (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

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):