Benchmark: for-in vs object keys map vs object keys loop

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  'a': 1,
  'b': 1,
  'c': 1,
  'd': 1,
  'e': 1,
  'f': 1,
  'g': 1
};

Tests:

for-in
for (var i=10000; i > 0; i--) { for (var key in obj) { console.log(key); } }
Object.keys map
for (var i=10000; i > 0; i--) { Object.keys(obj).forEach(key => console.log(key)); }
Object.keys loop
for (var i=10000; i > 0; i--) { for (var key of Object.keys(obj)) { console.log(key); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for-in
Object.keys map
Object.keys loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website, which compares the performance of three different approaches to iterate over an object's keys: `for-in`, `Object.keys` with `map`, and `Object.keys` with a traditional loop.

**Tested Approaches**

1. **For-in**: This approach uses the `in` operator to check if a property is present in the object, and then iterates over the properties using a `for` loop.
2. **Object.keys map**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of the object's keys, and then uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the array, logging each key to the console.
3. **Object.keys loop**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of the object's keys, and then uses a traditional `for` loop with a variable declaration (`var key`) to iterate over the array, logging each key to the console.

**Pros and Cons**

* **For-in**:
	+ Pros: Simple and concise syntax.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of checking if a property is present in the object.
* **Object.keys map**:
	+ Pros: Faster than `for-in` since it avoids the overhead of property checks. Also, uses modern JavaScript features like `map()`.
	+ Cons: Requires modern browsers that support `map()` and can be slower for smaller arrays due to the function call overhead.
* **Object.keys loop**:
	+ Pros: Similar performance to `Object.keys map` since it avoids the overhead of property checks. Also, uses a traditional `for` loop with a variable declaration, which can be familiar to developers.
	+ Cons: May have slightly slower performance due to the need for an explicit loop.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark test case uses no external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond what is required by each approach. The only notable feature is the use of modern JavaScript methods like `map()` in the `Object.keys map` approach, which is supported by most modern browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, you could also consider using other approaches, such as:

* Using a library like Lodash's `keys()` function
* Using a more concise syntax with `for...of` loops and spread operator (`Object.keys(obj)` → `for (const key of Object.keys(obj))`)
* Optimizing the code by using caching or memoization to avoid repeated property checks

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly comparable to the MeasureThat.net benchmark, as they would require modifications to the original test case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for-in	3.7 Ops/sec
Object.keys map	3.4 Ops/sec
Object.keys loop	3.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for-in vs object keys map vs object keys loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for-in vs Object.keys map vs Object.keys loop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for-in

Object.keys map

Object.keys loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):