Benchmark: lodash.keys vs Object.keys

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = {a: 30310, b: 100303, c: 3040494}

Tests:

lodash.keys
_.keys(value)
native
Object.keys(value)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.keys
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases: `lodash.keys` and `native`. The "Name" field specifies the name of the benchmark, while the "Description" field is empty. The "Script Preparation Code" section contains JavaScript code that sets up the test environment by defining an object `value` with three properties (`a`, `b`, and `c`). This object will be used to test the performance of both `lodash.keys()` and `Object.keys()`. The "Html Preparation Code" section includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.16.0.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `lodash.keys()`: This function returns an array-like object containing all the enumerable keys of the input object.
2. `Object.keys()`: This function returns an array of a given object's own enumerable property names.

**Pros and Cons of different approaches**

Both `lodash.keys()` and `Object.keys()` are built-in functions in JavaScript, but they have some differences:

*   Performance: `Object.keys()` is generally faster than `lodash.keys()`, as it is a native function that doesn't require an external library.
    *   **Pros of Object.keys():** It's faster, more efficient and easier to understand because it is built-in in JavaScript
    *   **Cons of Object.keys():** You can't control the output order, i.e., you can't sort keys before sending them
*   Control: `lodash.keys()` provides more control over the output, as you can specify options like `true` for only enumerable properties and `false` for non-enumerable ones. Additionally, it doesn't have the same performance implications as `Object.keys()`.
    *   **Pros of lodash.keys():** You can control the type of keys, i.e., both enumerable and non-enumerable
    *   **Cons of lodash.keys():** It's slower than Object.keys(), you need to install and load a library in your browser

**Library**

The Lodash library is a utility function that provides a lot of useful functions for working with JavaScript objects. In this benchmark, `lodash.keys()` is used to get an array-like object containing all the enumerable keys of the input object.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to test the performance of other approaches, here are some alternatives:

*   `Array.prototype.slice.call(object.keys())` (for older browsers that support ECMAScript 5)
*   `Object.keys()` followed by `.map()` or `[...object.keys()]` for specific keys
*   Using a custom function written in C++ or another language to improve performance

These alternatives may have different pros and cons, and their performance characteristics may vary.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.121 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.keys	3578724.5 Ops/sec
native	4110001.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash.keys vs Object.keys (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.keys vs native

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.keys

native

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):