Benchmark: Object.values vs Object.entries loop

Tests:

mapForIn
const obj = { "1": { id: 1 }, "2": { id: 2 }, "3": { id: 3 }, "4": { id: 4 }, "5": { id: 5 }, "6": { id: 6 }, "7": { id: 7 }, "8": { id: 8 }, "9": { id: 9 }, "10": { id: 10 }, "11": { id: 11 }, "12": { id: 12 }, "13": { id: 13 }, "14": { id: 14 }, "15": { id: 15 }, "16": { id: 16 }, "17": { id: 17 }, "18": { id: 18 }, "19": { id: 19 }, "20": { id: 20 } }; const mapEntries = (func) => Object.entries(obj).map(func); mapEntries((item, index) => item[1]);
mapValues
const obj = { "1": { id: 1 }, "2": { id: 2 }, "3": { id: 3 }, "4": { id: 4 }, "5": { id: 5 }, "6": { id: 6 }, "7": { id: 7 }, "8": { id: 8 }, "9": { id: 9 }, "10": { id: 10 }, "11": { id: 11 }, "12": { id: 12 }, "13": { id: 13 }, "14": { id: 14 }, "15": { id: 15 }, "16": { id: 16 }, "17": { id: 17 }, "18": { id: 18 }, "19": { id: 19 }, "20": { id: 20 } }; const mapValues = (func) => Object.values(obj).map(func); mapValues((item, index) => item);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
mapForIn
mapValues

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 dive into the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net:

1. `mapValues`: This test case measures the performance of using `Object.values()` and then mapping over the resulting array.
2. `mapForIn`: This test case measures the performance of using `Object.entries()` and then iterating over the resulting array using a traditional `for-in` loop.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* `Object.values()` with mapping
* `Object.entries()` with a traditional `for-in` loop

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Object.values() with mapping**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive way to iterate over object values.
		+ Can be more readable for simple use cases.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the creation of an intermediate array, which can lead to slower performance compared to using `Object.entries()` directly.
2. **Object.entries() with a traditional `for-in` loop**:
	* Pros:
		+ More direct and efficient way to iterate over object entries, as it avoids creating an intermediate array.
		+ Can be faster for large objects, since it only requires a single pass through the object's properties.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more boilerplate code to set up the loop and iterate over the properties.

**Library usage**

In both test cases, no specific libraries are used beyond JavaScript's built-in `Object` methods. However, if additional libraries were required for custom behavior or optimization, they might impact the performance results.

**Special JS feature**

Neither of these approaches uses a special JavaScript feature or syntax. The tests rely solely on standard ECMAScript features and conventions.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to modify or extend these benchmark test cases, some alternative approaches could include:

* Using `Object.keys()` instead of `Object.entries()` for iteration.
* Comparing the performance of using `for...of` loops versus traditional `for-in` loops.
* Incorporating additional object properties or complexity to evaluate scalability and robustness.

However, keep in mind that these alternatives might require adjustments to the benchmark code and testing configuration.

**Benchmark preparation**

To create a similar benchmark, you would need to:

1. Prepare an object with multiple entries, like `obj`, as shown in the provided JSON.
2. Define two functions: `mapValues()` and `mapForIn()`. The first function should use `Object.values()` and then map over the resulting array using an arrow function (e.g., `(item, index) => item`). The second function should iterate over the object entries directly using a traditional `for-in` loop.
3. Call these functions in the benchmark preparation code to create the test cases.

**Measuring performance**

To measure performance on MeasureThat.net, simply fill in the script and HTML preparation codes as shown in the provided JSON. Then, run the benchmarks multiple times and compare the results to determine which approach is faster for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Object.values vs Object.entries loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: mapForIn vs mapValues

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

mapForIn

mapValues

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):