Benchmark: _.isEmpty() vs Object.keys().length

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};

for (let i = 0, len = 1000000; i < len; i++) {
  obj['key' + i] = 'value' + i;
}

Tests:

Object.keys
Object.keys(window.obj).length === 0;
_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.obj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.keys
_.isEmpty

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript functions: `_.isEmpty()` from the Lodash library and `Object.keys().length` for checking if an object is empty.

**What's being tested?**

The test case uses two different approaches to check if an object is empty:

1. **Lodash _.isEmpty()**: This function checks if an object has any properties that are truthy values, i.e., values that don't evaluate to `false` in a boolean context.
2. **Object.keys().length**: This approach involves getting the array of keys from the object using `Object.keys()` and then checking its length. If the length is 0, it means the object is empty.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash _.isEmpty()**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Faster execution since it only checks for truthy values, which are typically faster to evaluate than checking for falsy values (0, null, undefined).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the Lodash library to be included in the test environment.
2. **Object.keys().length**
	* Pros:
		+ More explicit and understandable code.
		+ No additional libraries are required.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower execution since it involves getting an array of keys, which can lead to slower performance due to hash table lookups.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Memory usage**: Both approaches have different memory implications. `_.isEmpty()` likely has lower memory overhead since it only checks for truthy values without creating a new array of keys.
2. **Browser differences**: The benchmark results may vary across browsers, as each browser may have its own optimizations or quirks when dealing with object properties.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides various utility functions, including `_.isEmpty()`. It's often used for simplifying code and reducing boilerplate. In this benchmark, Lodash is included as part of the HTML preparation code to enable its usage in the test environment.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested or utilized in this benchmark.

**Alternatives:**

1. **Other _.isEmpty() alternatives**: Depending on the specific use case, other alternatives like `Object.keys().every()` or `Object.values().every()` might be used instead of `_.isEmpty()`.
2. **Custom implementation**: A custom implementation using a loop to check each property's value could also be considered as an alternative.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for checking if an object is empty: Lodash _.isEmpty() and Object.keys().length. While both have their pros and cons, Lodash _.isEmpty() is generally faster and more concise, but requires the library to be included in the test environment.

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty() vs Object.keys().length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.keys vs _.isEmpty

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.keys

_.isEmpty

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):