Benchmark: _.toPairs vs Object.entires

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var hashmap = {
      id1: {
        id: 'id1',
        content: ''
      },
      id2: {
        id: 'id2',
        content: ''
      },
      id3: {
        id: 'id3',
        content: ''
      }
 };

Tests:

lodash
_.toPairs(hashmap)
native
Object.entries(hashmap)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

native

48.0M/s

lodash

19.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ native	48,004,204 Ops/sec
lodash	19,149,646 Ops/sec

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 benchmark compares two ways to iterate over an object: Lodash's `_.toPairs` method and native JavaScript's `Object.entries` method.

**Options Compared**

* **Lodash's _.toPairs**: This method returns an array of key-value pairs in the object. It uses a for...in loop under the hood.
* **Native JavaScript's Object.entries**: This method also returns an array of key-value pairs in the object, but it does so using the new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash's _.toPairs**: Pros:
	+ Wide compatibility with older browsers and Node.js versions.
	+ Can be used as a utility function for converting objects to iterables.
	Cons:
	+ Slower than native JavaScript due to the use of a for...in loop.
	+ Additional dependency on Lodash library.
* **Native JavaScript's Object.entries**: Pros:
	+ Faster execution speed, especially in modern browsers and Node.js versions.
	+ Part of the standard language, so no additional dependencies are needed.
	Cons:
	+ Limited compatibility with older browsers and Node.js versions.
	+ Introduced new syntax that might require changes to existing code.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides various utility functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, it's used for the `_.toPairs` method, which helps convert objects to iterables.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: ES6 New Syntax**

The native JavaScript code uses the new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) for accessing object properties by name using bracket notation (`Object.entries(hashmap)`). This is a newer way of doing things compared to older methods like `for...in` or `Object.keys()`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't have access to the Lodash library or prefer not to use it, you can also consider other ways to convert objects to iterables in JavaScript:

* Using `Object.keys()` and then iterating over an array of keys.
* Using `for...in` loops with object iteration.
* Creating a custom function for converting objects to iterables.

However, these alternatives might be slower or less efficient than using native JavaScript's `Object.entries`, depending on the specific use case.

_.toPairs vs Object.entires (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing lodash toPairs with native JS Object.entires

Comparing performance of: `lodash vs native`

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

_.toPairs vs Object.entires (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing lodash toPairs with native JS Object.entires

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash

native

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: `lodash vs native`