Benchmark: Compare lodash isEmpty and length comparison on arrays and Object keys

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

// empty array
window.foo1 = [];

// array of strings
window.foo2 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'];

// array of objects
window.foo3 = { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4, e: 5};

Tests:

isEmpty empty array
_.isEmpty(window.foo1);
length empty array
window.foo1.length === 0;
isEmpty array of strings
_.isEmpty(window.foo2);
length array of strings
window.foo2.length === 0;
isEmpty on object
_.isEmpty(window.foo3);
length of object
Object.keys(window.foo3).length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
isEmpty empty array
length empty array
isEmpty array of strings
length array of strings
isEmpty on object
length of object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `_.isEmpty` method from Lodash and checking the length of an array or object directly.

**Lodash Library**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of reusable functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. The `_` prefix refers to the root namespace of the library.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.isEmpty` function is used to check if an array or object is empty. This function takes a single argument and returns a boolean value indicating whether the input is empty.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using Lodash's `_.isEmpty` method:
	* Pros: concise and expressive code, provides a standardized way of checking emptiness.
	* Cons: adds external dependency (Lodash), may introduce overhead due to function call.
2. Checking length directly:
	* Pros: no external dependency, simple and lightweight implementation.
	* Cons: requires more boilerplate code, less readable for complex cases.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark results show the execution frequency per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case. The top performer is the "length empty array" test with approximately 1127 executions per second on Chrome 104.

**Device and OS Breakdown**

The latest benchmark result shows the device platform, operating system, and browser type for each test case. This suggests that:

* Desktop environments are more consistent than mobile or tablet devices.
* Linux is a better platform than other operating systems (e.g., Windows).
* Chrome 104 is the top-performing browser, followed by others in the Safari and Firefox families.

**Other Considerations**

When writing JavaScript benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Code readability and maintainability
* Test case coverage and diversity
* External dependencies and their potential impact on performance
* Device and OS variations

In this benchmark, using Lodash's `_.isEmpty` method provides a concise and expressive way of checking emptiness, but introduces an external dependency. Checking length directly is more lightweight but requires more boilerplate code.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. Using the built-in `Array.prototype.length` property: This approach is similar to checking length directly, but relies on native JavaScript support.
2. Implementing a custom emptiness check function using bitwise operations or other optimization techniques.
3. Utilizing libraries like FastJSON or JSON for fast string parsing and manipulation.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its pros and cons, and may not provide the same level of performance, readability, or maintainability as the original benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
isEmpty empty array	4828587.5 Ops/sec
length empty array	10844446.0 Ops/sec
isEmpty array of strings	4970387.5 Ops/sec
length array of strings	11270569.0 Ops/sec
isEmpty on object	5206565.5 Ops/sec
length of object	5999092.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare lodash isEmpty and length comparison on arrays and Object keys (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: isEmpty empty array vs length empty array vs isEmpty array of strings vs length array of strings vs isEmpty on object vs length of object

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

isEmpty empty array

length empty array

isEmpty array of strings

length array of strings

isEmpty on object

length of object

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):