Benchmark: Fastest way to check if object is empty

Script Preparation code:

var xxx = {}

Tests:

object.keys()
Object.keys(xxx) === 0
JSON.stringify()
JSON.stringify(xxx) === "{}"

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object.keys()
JSON.stringify()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object.keys()	90966784.0 Ops/sec
JSON.stringify()	28990420.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark measures the fastest way to check if an object is empty. This involves comparing two approaches:

1. **Using `Object.keys()`:** The first test case checks if an object is empty by using the `Object.keys()` method, which returns an array of strings representing the property names in the object. If the object is empty, the length of this array should be 0.
2. **Using `JSON.stringify()`:** The second test case checks if an object is empty by converting it to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify()`. An empty object should result in an empty string.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`Object.keys()`**: This approach has the advantage of being concise and straightforward. It's also generally faster than `JSON.stringify()`, as it only iterates over the object's properties, whereas `JSON.stringify()` needs to serialize the entire object.
	+ However, this approach can be slower for very large objects, as it needs to return an array of property names. Additionally, some implementations might not work correctly if the object has a large number of enumerable properties.
* **`JSON.stringify()`**: This approach has the advantage of being able to handle complex data structures and even nested objects. However, it's generally slower than `Object.keys()`, as it needs to serialize the entire object.
	+ Additionally, this approach can be less readable for simple use cases, as it's not immediately clear what the function is intended to do.

**Library:**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if we were to implement a more complex data structure or algorithm, we might consider using libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript conventions.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to check if an object is empty, other alternatives could include:

* Using `Object.getOwnPropertyNames()` instead of `Object.keys()`
* Using a custom function that checks for property names or values
* Using a more advanced data structure like a Map (if the object has key-value pairs)

Related benchmarks:

Fastest way to check if object is empty (version: 0)

You don't need to make add for loops in your test scenarios, the benchmark does it itself.

Comparing performance of: object.keys() vs JSON.stringify()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object.keys()

JSON.stringify()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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