testObject = {'asdf': 'apple', 'afwefg': 'pear', 'hohoo': 'santa', 'country': 'usa', 'bottle': 'gin'};
'afwefg' in testObject
!!testObject['afwefg']
testObject['afwefg']
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
key in object | |
!!object[key] | |
object[key] |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
key in object | 1965422.4 Ops/sec |
!!object[key] | 2447303.5 Ops/sec |
object[key] | 2450138.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches:
key in object
: This checks if a key exists in an object using the in
operator.!!object[key]
: This uses the logical not operator (!!
) to check if the value of the specified key is falsy. Since Object.keys()
returns an array of keys, and empty arrays are considered falsy, this approach essentially checks if the key exists in the object.The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of these two approaches: checking for existence using the in
operator versus using a conditional expression with logical not.
Pros and Cons
key in object
:in
.!!object[key]
:key in object
approach, especially when dealing with large objects or arrays.Library and Special JS Features
In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's essential to note that using the in
operator checks if the property exists in the object's prototype chain. If you want to check only the own properties of an object (i.e., not its prototype), you would need to use Object.hasOwnProperty()
.
Other Considerations
When writing microbenchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors beyond performance:
Alternatives
If you need to benchmark similar expressions, consider testing other approaches, such as:
Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()
(if you're targeting older browsers)Array.isArray()
and typeof
to check if a value is an array or objecthasOwnProperty()
on objectsKeep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs, and the best solution depends on your specific use case.