Benchmark: Object to Array with fill other object

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  a: {
    id: "a",
    name: "Ваня",
    date: "2024-12-01 18:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 12,
    type: "B",
  },
  b: {
    id: "b",
    name: "Маня",
    date: "2024-12-01 02:00",
    curr: "KZT",
    level: 3,
    type: "A",
  },
  c: {
    id: "c",
    name: "Петя",
    date: "2024-12-01 12:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 7,
    type: "B",
  },
  d: {
    id: "d",
    name: "Вика",
    date: "2024-12-01 05:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 9,
    type: "A",
  },
  e: {
    id: "e",
    name: "Лера",
    date: "2024-12-01 11:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 2,
    type: "C",
  },
  f: {
    id: "f",
    name: "Каша",
    date: "2024-12-01 15:00",
    curr: "KZT",
    level: 10,
    type: "B",
  },
  g: {
    id: "g",
    name: "Паша",
    date: "2024-12-01 17:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 1,
    type: "A",
  },
  h: {
    id: "h",
    name: "Даша",
    date: "2024-12-01 10:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 8,
    type: "A",
  },
  i: {
    id: "i",
    name: "Вера",
    date: "2024-12-01 00:00",
    curr: "RUB",
    level: 5,
    type: "A",
  },
  j: {
    id: "j",
    name: "Саша",
    date: "2024-12-01 14:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 11,
    type: "C",
  },
  k: {
    id: "k",
    name: "Маша",
    date: "2024-12-01 10:00",
    curr: "KZT",
    level: 4,
    type: "A",
  },
  l: {
    id: "l",
    name: "Ваня",
    date: "2024-12-01 15:00",
    curr: "USD",
    level: 6,
    type: "A",
  },
};

var CURR_ORDER = {
  RUB: 1,
  USD: 2,
  KZT: 3,
};

var TYPE_ORDER = {
  A: 1,
  B: 2,
  C: 3,
};

Tests:

for..in + push
const order = []; const map = {}; for(key in obj) { if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)) { const el = obj[key]; map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; order.push(el.id); } }
Object.values() + for + push
const order = []; const map = {}; const objArr = Object.values(obj); for(let i = 0; i < objArr.length; i++) { const el = objArr[i]; order.push(el.id); map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; }
Object.values() + for
const order = []; const map = {}; const objArr = Object.values(obj); for(let i = 0; i < objArr.length; i++) { const el = objArr[i]; order[i] = el.id; map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; }
Object.values() + map()
const map = {}; const order = Object.values(obj).map((el) => { map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; return el.id; });
Object.values() + reduce()
const {map, order} = Object.values(obj).reduce((acc, el, i) => { acc.map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; acc.order[i] = el.id; return acc; }, {map: {}, order: []});
Object.keys() + for
const order = []; const map = {}; const keys = Object.keys(obj); for(let i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) { const el = obj[keys[i]]; map[el.id] = {id: el.id, curr: el.curr}; order[i] = el.id; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for..in + push
Object.values() + for + push
Object.values() + for
Object.values() + map()
Object.values() + reduce()
Object.keys() + for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I see you've provided benchmark results for different JavaScript methods. To provide an answer, I'll need to analyze the data and identify the best approach.

Here are my observations:

1. The benchmarks show varying performance across different methods:
	* `Object.values()` + `for`: 2619006.25 executions per second
	* `Object.values()` + `for + push`: 2728732.5 executions per second
	* `Object.values()` + `map()`: 2574164.0 executions per second
	* `Object.values()` + `reduce()`: 2245099.25 executions per second
	* `Object.keys()` + `for`: 2152180.0 executions per second
	* `for..in + push`: 1518141.0 executions per second
2. The first two methods, `Object.values()` with additional operations (`for` and `map`), are performing similarly well, indicating that the overhead of these operations is relatively low.
3. The third method, `reduce()`, has a lower performance than the other two methods, suggesting that the complexity of the reduction operation might be contributing to the slower performance.

Based on this analysis, I would recommend using **`Object.values()` with additional operations (`for` and `map`)**, which achieves a balance between readability and performance. This approach allows you to keep the logic concise while still leveraging the benefits of functional programming.

If you're concerned about reducing memory allocation or modifying the original object, consider using `Object.keys()` with a similar loop structure. However, be aware that this might require additional bookkeeping for iteration indices.

As for the `for..in + push` method, it's likely due to the inherent overhead of iterating over an object using `for...in`, which can be slower than the other methods. This approach is not recommended unless you have a specific reason for avoiding functional programming or iterative loops.

Do you have any follow-up questions or would you like me to elaborate on my recommendations?

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:121.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/121.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 121 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for..in + push	1518141.0 Ops/sec
Object.values() + for + push	2619006.2 Ops/sec
Object.values() + for	2728732.5 Ops/sec
Object.values() + map()	2574164.0 Ops/sec
Object.values() + reduce()	2245099.2 Ops/sec
Object.keys() + for	2152180.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Object to Array with fill other object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for..in + push vs Object.values() + for + push vs Object.values() + for vs Object.values() + map() vs Object.values() + reduce() vs Object.keys() + for

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for..in + push

Object.values() + for + push

Object.values() + for

Object.values() + map()

Object.values() + reduce()

Object.keys() + for

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):