var props = {a:1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1,h:1,i:1,j:1,k:1,l:1,m:1,n:1,o:1,p:1,q:1,r:1,s:1,t:1,u:1,v:1,w:1,x:1,y:1,z:1};
props.hasOwnProperty('z')
Object.keys(props).includes('z')
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
HasOwnProperty | |
Includes |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
HasOwnProperty | 64959432.0 Ops/sec |
Includes | 15304830.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Purpose: The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance difference between two methods for checking if an object has a property:
hasOwnProperty
: A method that checks if an object (usually the this
context) has a property with a given key.includes
: A method that searches for a value in an array or object and returns true if found, or false otherwise.Options Compared:
hasOwnProperty
includes
Pros and Cons of Each Approach:
this
object, which might be unexpected behavior in some cases.includes
for large objects or arrays.hasOwnProperty
, as it can search for values in any type of collection.hasOwnProperty
for very large collections.Library Usage: There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. The methods are part of the standard JavaScript language and are built-in to most modern browsers.
Special JS Features or Syntax: There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax introduced in this benchmark. It only uses native methods and basic syntax for object property checks.
Alternative Approaches:
hasOwnProperty
is still a good choice due to its native performance and simplicity.includes
method, you might consider using a polyfill or a work-around like using a library that provides similar functionality.In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two methods for checking object property existence: hasOwnProperty
and includes
. While hasOwnProperty
is a native method with good performance for small objects, includes
offers more flexibility but might be slower in certain cases.