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

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 = {};

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:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.keys	7519509.0 Ops/sec
_.isEmpty	6483426.5 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 provided JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies two different approaches to check if an object is empty:

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

These two approaches are used to measure the performance difference between using the native JavaScript `Object.keys()` method and a third-party library's function (`_.isEmpty()`) for checking if an object is empty.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the native JavaScript `Object.keys()` method
* Using the _.isEmpty() function from the Lodash library

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript `Object.keys()` method:**
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in, no additional dependency required
		+ Low overhead, as it only involves iterating over the object's keys
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the iteration process
2. **_.isEmpty() function from Lodash library:**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it is optimized for performance and can take advantage of native optimizations
		+ Reduces boilerplate code, making the benchmark more concise
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional dependency (Lodash)
		+ May have a slight overhead due to the function call

**Library: Lodash**

The _.isEmpty() function is part of the Lodash library, which provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for JavaScript. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to provide a faster and more concise way to check if an object is empty.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of Lodash does require importing a library, which may be considered as a special case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to create a similar benchmark using native JavaScript methods without relying on a third-party library like Lodash, you could consider alternatives such as:

* Using `Object.getOwnPropertyNames()` or `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors()` instead of `Object.keys()`
* Implementing your own function for checking if an object is empty
* Using a different approach altogether, such as using a specific numeric value to represent the absence of keys (e.g., `0`)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same level of performance or conciseness as the _.isEmpty() function from Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty() vs Object.keys().length empty objects (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

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