Benchmark: withoutObjectKeys again

Script Preparation code:

var withoutObjectKeys = function (blacklist, object) {
    return Object.keys(object).reduce(function (acc, key) {
      return blacklist.includes(key) ? acc : {...acc, [key]: object[key]};
    }, {});
};

var withoutObjectKeys2 = function (blacklist, object) {
  const clone = {...object};
  for (var key of blacklist) {
    delete clone[key];
  }
};

var withoutObjectKeys3 = function (blacklist, object) {
  const clone = {};
  for (var key of Object.keys(object)) {
    if (!blacklist.includes(key)) {
      clone[key] = object[key];
    }
  }
};

var original = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4, e: 5, f: 6, g: 8};
var keys = ['a', 'c', 'e', 'g']

Tests:

reduce
withoutObjectKeys(keys, original)
clone & delete
withoutObjectKeys2(keys, original)
foreach
withoutObjectKeys3(keys, original)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
clone & delete
foreach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is testing three different approaches to remove object keys from an object based on a blacklist. The test case uses the `withoutObjectKeys` function, which is defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section of the benchmark definition JSON. The function takes two arguments: `blacklist` and `object`. It returns a new object that only includes the key-value pairs where the key is not present in the `blacklist`.

**Options Compared**

The three options being compared are:

1. `withoutObjectKeys`: This approach uses the `reduce()` method to iterate over the keys of the original object and filter out the ones present in the `blacklist`.
2. `withoutObjectKeys2`: This approach creates a copy of the original object using the spread operator (`{...object}`), and then deletes the key-value pairs that are present in the `blacklist` by calling the `delete` keyword.
3. `withoutObjectKeys3`: This approach creates an empty object (`const clone = {}`) and then iterates over the keys of the original object, assigning the value to the cloned object only if the key is not present in the `blacklist`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **withoutObjectKeys`:
	* Pros: Efficient use of `reduce()` method, which can be optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May have higher memory overhead due to creating a new object with filtered key-value pairs.
2. **withoutObjectKeys2`:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand, as it uses the spread operator and `delete` keyword.
	* Cons: May be slower than `withoutObjectKeys` due to the creation of a copy of the original object and subsequent deletion of key-value pairs.
3. **withoutObjectKeys3`:
	* Pros: Avoids creating a new object with filtered key-value pairs, which can reduce memory overhead.
	* Cons: May be less efficient than `withoutObjectKeys` due to the need for explicit iteration over keys.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, some JavaScript features are being utilized:

* The spread operator (`{...object}`) is used in `withoutObjectKeys2` to create a copy of the original object.
* The `delete` keyword is used in `withoutObjectKeys2` to delete key-value pairs from the cloned object.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to remove object keys based on a blacklist could include:

1. Using `Object.fromEntries()` and filtering out key-value pairs using an array filter.
2. Using a library like Lodash's `omitBy()` function, which is optimized for performance.
3. Using a more functional programming approach with `reduce()` or `map()` methods.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4297.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	612792.2 Ops/sec
clone & delete	949310.7 Ops/sec
foreach	1164260.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

withoutObjectKeys again (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs clone & delete vs foreach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

clone & delete

foreach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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