Benchmark: Lodash isEmpty vs Length < 1 check

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.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: { a: 1, b: 2, c: { a: 1, b: 2 } } }, { a: 1, b: 2, c: { a: 1, b: 2, c: { a: 1, b: 2 } } }, { a: 1, b: 2, c: { a: 1, b: 2, c: { a: 1, b: 2 } } }];

Tests:

Empty array - Length
window.foo1.length < 1;
Empty array - lodash
_.isEmpty(window.foo1);
String array - length
window.foo2.length < 1;
String array - lodash
_.isEmpty(window.foo2);
Obj array - length
window.foo3.length < 1;
Obj array - lodash
_.isEmpty(window.foo3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Empty array - Length
Empty array - lodash
String array - length
String array - lodash
Obj array - length
Obj array - lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the JSON aims to compare two methods of checking if an array is empty: using the native `.length` property check (`array.length < 1`) and using the `_.isEmpty` function provided by the Lodash library (`_.isEmpty(array)`).

### Options Compared

1. **Length Check**
   - **Syntax**: `array.length < 1`
   - **Description**: This method utilizes the built-in `length` property of arrays in JavaScript. An empty array will have a length of 0, thus the expression evaluates to `true` if the array is empty.

2. **Lodash isEmpty Check**
   - **Syntax**: `_.isEmpty(array)`
   - **Description**: This method uses the Lodash library's `isEmpty` function. It checks if the array is empty, returning `true` for empty arrays.

### Context of the Benchmark

The benchmark executes tests on three types of arrays:
- An empty array (`window.foo1`)
- An array of strings (`window.foo2`)
- An array of objects (`window.foo3`)

For each of these types, both the length check and the Lodash `isEmpty` check are performed.

### Pros and Cons

#### Length Check
- **Pros**:
  - **Performance**: Directly accessing the `length` property is a very fast operation since it is a fundamental feature of arrays in JavaScript.
  - **Simplicity**: Very straightforward and clear for anyone familiar with JavaScript.
  
- **Cons**:
  - **Limited Use**: This method only checks for empty arrays; it won’t work for other types of objects or more complex structures.

#### Lodash isEmpty Check
- **Pros**:
  - **Versatility**: `_.isEmpty` can check for emptiness in various data structures, not just arrays. This includes objects, strings, and even Maps and Sets.
  - **Readability**: It can be considered more readable, especially for developers who might not be as familiar with JavaScript's native constructs.

- **Cons**:
  - **Performance**: There is an overhead in using a library function as it involves additional processing compared to a simple property access. Benchmark results indicate a significant difference in performance with `_.isEmpty` being slower than the length check in this specific case.
  - **Dependency**: Requires importing the Lodash library, which could increase bundle size in projects where minimizing script size is important.

### Benchmark Results Overview

The benchmark results show that:
- The checks using the length property outperformed the Lodash `isEmpty` checks across all test cases, particularly with the empty array.
- Specifically, for the empty array and object array scenarios, the length check executed approximately twice as many operations per second compared to the Lodash checks, highlighting the performance benefits of direct property access.

### Other Considerations

- **Use Cases**: If developers are only working with arrays and need to check for emptiness, the length check is a straightforward and efficient choice. 
- **Library Use**: If the project already utilizes Lodash and combines various data structures, using `_.isEmpty` might be preferable for consistency, despite the performance hit.
- **Performance Impact**: Always consider the performance implications in high-frequency checks (e.g., in loops or performance-critical applications).

### Alternatives

- **Object Check**: For projects with various data types, consider alternatives like checking within a framework or utility library specifically designed for collections (e.g., Underscore.js).
- **ES6+ Features**: If working with modern JavaScript features, developers can also utilize `Array.prototype.every()` or other array methods to create custom checks for emptiness.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides clear insights into the trade-offs between performance and versatility, helping developers make informed decisions based on their specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 28 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Empty array - Length	13095935.0 Ops/sec
Empty array - lodash	6554953.5 Ops/sec
String array - length	12975452.0 Ops/sec
String array - lodash	6684103.0 Ops/sec
Obj array - length	12914404.0 Ops/sec
Obj array - lodash	6541496.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash isEmpty vs Length < 1 check (version: 0)

Checking length comparison vs isEmpty comparison

Comparing performance of: Empty array - Length vs Empty array - lodash vs String array - length vs String array - lodash vs Obj array - length vs Obj array - lodash

Created: 28 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Empty array - Length

Empty array - lodash

String array - length

String array - lodash

Obj array - length

Obj array - lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 27 days ago):