Benchmark: hasownproperty - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

o = {
        "configGlossary:installationAt": "Philadelphia, PA",
        "configGlossary:adminEmail": "ksm@pobox.com",
        "configGlossary:poweredBy": "Cofax",
        "configGlossary:poweredByIcon": "/images/cofax.gif",
        "configGlossary:staticPath": "/content/static",
        "templateProcessorClass": "org.cofax.WysiwygTemplate",
        "templateLoaderClass": "org.cofax.FilesTemplateLoader",
        "templatePath": "templates",
        "templateOverridePath": "",
        "defaultListTemplate": "listTemplate.htm",
        "defaultFileTemplate": "articleTemplate.htm",
        "useJSP": false,
        "jspListTemplate": "listTemplate.jsp",
        "jspFileTemplate": "articleTemplate.jsp",
        "cachePackageTagsTrack": 200,
        "cachePackageTagsStore": 200,
        "cachePackageTagsRefresh": 60,
        "cacheTemplatesTrack": 100,
        "cacheTemplatesStore": 50,
        "cacheTemplatesRefresh": 15,
        "cachePagesTrack": 200,
        "cachePagesStore": 100,
        "cachePagesRefresh": 10,
        "cachePagesDirtyRead": 10,
        "searchEngineListTemplate": "forSearchEnginesList.htm",
        "searchEngineFileTemplate": "forSearchEngines.htm",
        "searchEngineRobotsDb": "WEB-INF/robots.db",
        "useDataStore": true,
        "dataStoreClass": "org.cofax.SqlDataStore",
        "redirectionClass": "org.cofax.SqlRedirection",
        "dataStoreName": "cofax",
        "dataStoreDriver": "com.microsoft.jdbc.sqlserver.SQLServerDriver",
        "dataStoreUrl": "jdbc:microsoft:sqlserver://LOCALHOST:1433;DatabaseName=goon",
        "dataStoreUser": "sa",
        "dataStorePassword": "dataStoreTestQuery",
        "dataStoreTestQuery": "SET NOCOUNT ON;select test='test';",
        "dataStoreLogFile": "/usr/local/tomcat/logs/datastore.log",
        "dataStoreInitConns": 10,
        "dataStoreMaxConns": 100,
        "dataStoreConnUsageLimit": 100,
        "dataStoreLogLevel": "debug",
        "maxUrlLength": 500};

Tests:

for in hasown
var s = ''; for (var prop in o) { if (o.hasOwnProperty(prop)) { s += o[prop]; } }
for in
var s = ''; for (var prop in o) { s += o[prop]; }
func
var s = ''; Object.keys(o).forEach(function(prop) { s += o[prop]; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for in hasown
for in
func

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: `for in`, `func`, and `for in hasown`. These test cases aim to measure the performance of different ways to access properties of an object in JavaScript.

**Options compared:**

1. **`for...in` loop**: This loop iterates over all enumerable properties (including inherited ones) of an object.
2. **`Object.keys()` method with `forEach()` callback**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of property names and then loops through it using the `forEach()` method.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **`for...in` loop**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, widely supported.
	* Cons: Iterates over inherited properties, can be slower due to additional overhead.
2. **`Object.keys()` method with `forEach()` callback**:
	* Pros: More efficient, avoids iterating over inherited properties.
	* Cons: Requires more code, not as widely supported (older browsers).

**Library used:**

In the provided benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some of the libraries and classes used in the script preparation code, such as `org.cofax.WysiwygTemplate` and `org.cofax.FilesTemplateLoader`, are likely part of a larger application or framework.

**Special JS features:**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. The focus is on measuring the performance of the two main approaches to access object properties.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative ways to iterate over an object's properties, you could consider using:

1. **`for...of` loop**: This loop iterates over all own enumerable property names of an object.
2. **`in` operator with `with` statement**: This approach uses the `with` statement to create a new scope for each iteration.
3. **`Array.prototype.map()` method**: This approach converts the object's properties into an array and then maps over it.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and may not be suitable for every situation.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested on MeasureThat.net!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 8.1.0; SM-N960U) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.149 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 80 on Android 8.1.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for in hasown	35530.1 Ops/sec
for in	65948.3 Ops/sec
func	60073.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

hasownproperty (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for in hasown vs for in vs func

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for in hasown

for in

func

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):