Benchmark: abcddddddd - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function extractValues(obj) {
   const values = [];
   for(var key in obj) { 
       values.push(obj[key]); 
   }
   return values;
}

Tests:

A
Object.values({ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });
B
_.values({ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });
C
extractValues({ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
A
B
C

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/93.0.4577.82 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 93 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
A	3016523.0 Ops/sec
B	3196917.8 Ops/sec
C	6699260.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON data for you, explaining what's being tested, and discuss the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. A microbenchmark is a small program designed to measure the performance of specific parts of code.

In this case, we have three benchmark definitions:

1. `Object.values({ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });`
2. `_.values({ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });`
3. `extractValues({ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });`

These three definitions represent different approaches to extracting values from an object.

**Options Compared**

The main difference between these three approaches is:

* `Object.values()`: This method returns an array of the property values of an object, without the keys.
* `_` (underscore) `values()` : This function comes from the Lodash library and works similarly to `Object.values()`.
* `extractValues()`: A custom function provided in the script preparation code that manually iterates over the object's properties and returns an array of values.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. `Object.values()`:
	* Pros: Simple, built-in method, easy to understand.
	* Cons: Might be slower than custom implementations due to overhead from the JavaScript engine.
2. `_values()` (Lodash):
	* Pros: Well-tested and optimized library function, can be faster than custom implementations.
	* Cons: Requires additional dependency (Lodash), might not be as straightforward to understand for those unfamiliar with Lodash.
3. `extractValues()`:
	* Pros: Custom implementation allows for fine-tuning performance, easy to understand for developers familiar with JavaScript.
	* Cons: Might require more manual iteration and logic, potentially slower than built-in methods or optimized library functions.

**Library (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object manipulation, and string manipulation. The `_.values()` function is part of this library, providing an efficient way to extract values from objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided data. However, if you're interested in exploring other JavaScript features or syntax, I can provide information on topics like async/await, Promises, or ES6+ features.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking and measuring performance of JavaScript code include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite: A collection of benchmark tests designed to measure the performance of the V8 JavaScript engine.
* jsPerf: A JavaScript benchmarking tool that allows you to compare the performance of different scripts or libraries.
* WebAssembly Benchmarks: A set of benchmarks for WebAssembly, which can be used to compare the performance of WebAssembly and JavaScript code.

Please note that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of benchmarking tool often depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

abcddddddd (version: 0)

abc

Comparing performance of: A vs B vs C

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

A

B

C

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):