Benchmark: Object.keys(object).includes(key) vs key in object

Script Preparation code:

var obj = (new Array(1000)).fill(null).reduce((prev, newVal) => {prev[Math.random() + ''] = Math.random() + ''; return prev; }, { sausage: 'tst' });

Tests:

Object.keys(object).includes(key)
Object.keys(obj).includes('sausage')
key in object
'sausage' in obj

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.keys(object).includes(key)
key in object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.60 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.keys(object).includes(key)	18807.0 Ops/sec
key in object	14025403.0 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different approaches for checking if a key exists in an object: `Object.keys(object).includes(key)` versus `key in object`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Object.keys(object).includes(key)`**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of the object's own enumerable property names, and then checks if the desired key is included in that array using the `.includes()` method.
2. **`key in object`**: This approach uses the `in` operator to check if the desired key exists as a property of the object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Object.keys(object).includes(key)`**:
	+ Pros: This approach is more explicit and readable, as it clearly shows what's being done. It also allows for additional error checking or handling.
	+ Cons: This approach can be slower than `key in object`, especially for large objects, since it creates an array of property names and then checks if the key is in that array.
* **`key in object`**:
	+ Pros: This approach is generally faster than `Object.keys(object).includes(key)`, as it only requires a single lookup operation.
	+ Cons: The performance difference may be negligible for small objects, but can add up for larger ones.

**Library/Function Used**

The benchmark uses the `Array.prototype.fill()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()` methods to create an object with 1000 properties named "sausage" (although not all of them are actually used in this specific benchmark).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is designed to be lightweight and easy to understand, making it accessible to a wide range of developers. The use of a simple object with 1000 properties makes it easy to understand the basic idea behind each approach.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you wanted to add more approaches to the benchmark, here are some alternatives:

* Using `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` instead of `key in object`
* Using a library like Lodash's `hasOwnProperty()` function
* Using a custom implementation that uses bit manipulation or other low-level optimization techniques

These additional approaches would require modifying the script preparation code to include the necessary imports and implementations.

Related benchmarks:

Object.keys(object).includes(key) vs key in object (version: 0)

Which is faster: Object.keys(object).includes(key) vs key in object

Comparing performance of: Object.keys(object).includes(key) vs key in object

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.keys(object).includes(key)

key in object

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):