Benchmark: Object.keys.length vs sum with for

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 100; i < len; i++) {
  obj['key' + i] = 'value' + i;
}

Tests:

_.isEmpty
let len = 0; for (const key in obj) { if (obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) { len++; } }
Object.keys().length
let len = Object.keys(window.obj).length;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JavaScript code snippet that defines two test cases:

1. `Object.keys().length`
2. `_.isEmpty` (which uses the Lodash library, more on that later)

The first test case measures the performance of calling the `Object.keys()` method and getting its length.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an object `window.obj` with 100 properties, each named "key" followed by a number from 0 to 99, and assigns them the value "value" plus the corresponding number. This object is used as input for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided in this benchmark definition.

**Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. `Object.keys().length`
	* Measures the performance of calling `Object.keys()` on the `window.obj` object and getting its length.
2. `_.isEmpty`
	* Uses the Lodash library to check if an object is empty by iterating over its keys using a for...in loop. The test case measures the performance of this iteration.

**Pro, Cons, and Considerations**

1. **Object.keys().length**
	* Pros: A built-in method in JavaScript, easy to implement, accurate.
	* Cons: Might be slower due to the overhead of calling a method on an object.
2. **_.isEmpty (Lodash)**
	* Pros: Portable across environments, can be used with other Lodash methods, efficient iteration.
	* Cons: Requires including the Lodash library in your code, might not work in older browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

1. Using `Object.keys()` and then checking the length using `[].length` (e.g., `Object.keys(window.obj).length`).
2. Using a simple loop to iterate over the object's keys without Lodash.
3. Using other libraries like `lodash-es` or `core-js` for alternative implementation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, depending on the specific use case and environment.

In this benchmark, measuring the performance of `_.isEmpty` versus `Object.keys().length` provides insight into the trade-offs between using built-in methods versus external libraries, as well as the pros and cons of iterating over object keys using a for...in loop.

Related benchmarks:

Object.keys.length vs sum with for (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs Object.keys().length

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Object.keys().length

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):