var obj = {
a: 1,
b: [2,3,4],
c: "test",
d: 1,
e: 3,
f: 21
}
Object.keys(obj);
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Object.keys | |
Object.getOwnPropertyNames |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Object.keys | 10708776.0 Ops/sec |
Object.getOwnPropertyNames | 12534661.0 Ops/sec |
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the website MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two methods for iterating over an object's properties: Object.keys()
and Object.getOwnPropertyNames()
. Let's break down what's being tested and what options are being compared.
Options Compared
Object.keys()
: This method returns an array of a given object's own enumerable property names.Object.getOwnPropertyNames()
: This method returns an array of all properties (enumerable and non-enumerable) of a given object.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
Object.keys()
:Object.getOwnPropertyNames()
due to the filtering process.Object.getOwnPropertyNames()
:Object.keys()
since it doesn't need to filter out non-enumerable properties.Library and Purpose
There is no explicit library being used in this benchmark. The JavaScript built-in functions Object.keys()
and Object.getOwnPropertyNames()
are being utilized to compare their performance.
Special JS Feature or Syntax
The test doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.
Other Alternatives
If you needed to iterate over an object's properties, other alternatives might include:
for...in
loop: This can be used with Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()
to ensure only enumerable properties are processed.Array.from()
and Object.entries()
: These can be used together to create an array of property names from an object, which can then be iterated over.for (const key in obj) {
if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)) {
console.log(key);
}
}
or
console.log(Array.from(Object.entries(obj)).map(([key, value]) => key));
Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may be more suitable depending on your specific use case.