Benchmark: Object.values vs Reduce vs for...in Loop (largeObj)

Script Preparation code:

window.largeObj = {};
for(i=0; i<1000000; i++){window.largeObj[i.toString()] = i}

Tests:

Object.values
return Object.values(window.largeObj);
Keys, Reduce
return Object.keys(window.largeObj).reduce((prev, key) => { prev.push(window.largeObj[key]); return prev; },[]);
for in Loop
const arr = []; for (let prop in window.largeObj) { arr.push(window.largeObj[prop]) } return arr;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.values
Keys, Reduce
for in Loop

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 benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark is designed to compare three approaches for accessing and manipulating an object's values:

1. `Object.values`
2. Using `Object.keys` with the `reduce()` method
3. A custom `for...in` loop

The benchmark creates a large object `window.largeObj` with 1 million properties, each containing an integer value from 0 to 999,999.

**Test Cases**

Each test case represents one of the three approaches:

1. **Object.values**: This method returns an array of the object's values, without their keys.
2. **Keys, Reduce**: This approach uses `Object.keys()` to get an array of the object's keys and then applies a reduce function to iterate over the keys and push their corresponding values into an array.
3. **for...in Loop**: This custom loop iterates over the object's properties using the `for...in` statement, pushing each value into an array.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these three approaches in terms of performance (measured by executions per second).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Object.values**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it directly accesses the object's values without keys.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for objects with complex relationships between properties.
2. **Keys, Reduce**:
	* Pros: Allows for more flexibility in accessing and manipulating object data, as it can handle nested objects or arrays.
	* Cons: May be slower than `Object.values` due to the overhead of iterating over keys using reduce.
3. **for...in Loop**:
	* Pros: Provides direct access to each property's value without relying on `Object.keys()` or `reduce()`.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as `Object.values`, especially for large objects, and can be slower due to the overhead of iterating over properties.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it uses standard JavaScript methods like `Object.values` and `reduce()`.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that require a deep understanding of the language.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks for similar use cases, consider the following:

* Use meaningful and descriptive variable names.
* Ensure the benchmark object creation process is representative of real-world scenarios.
* Choose an appropriate method for measuring performance (e.g., execution time, CPU cycles, or memory usage).
* Test on multiple platforms and browsers to ensure cross-platform compatibility.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing and manipulating object values might include:

* Using `Object.entries()` or `Object.fromEntries()` to iterate over key-value pairs.
* Implementing a custom iterator function using `Symbol.iterator`.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js for functional programming utilities.

Related benchmarks:

Object.values vs Reduce vs for...in Loop (largeObj) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.values vs Keys, Reduce vs for in Loop

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.values

Keys, Reduce

for in Loop

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):