Benchmark: Lodash forOwn vs Native keys + forEach 2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  a: 1,
  b: 2,
  c: 3,
}

Tests:

lodash forOwn
_.forOwn(obj, (a) => {console.log(a)});
Keys and then forEach
Object.keys(obj).forEach((a) => {console.log(a)});
for key
for (let key in obj) { // check if the property/key is defined in the object itself, not in parent if (obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) { console.log(key, obj[key]); } }
for key value
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(obj)) { console.log(key, value); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash forOwn
Keys and then forEach
for key
for key value

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'll take a deep breath and dive into explaining the benchmark.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The test compares different approaches to iterate over an object's keys in modern JavaScript browsers. We'll break down each individual test case, explain what's being tested, pros and cons of each approach, and discuss other considerations.

**Test Cases**

1. **Lodash forOwn vs Native keys + forEach 2**
The benchmark definition uses the Lodash library to call `forOwn` on an object `obj`. This method iterates over the object's own enumerable properties and executes a provided callback function.

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: _.forOwn(obj, (a) => { console.log(a) });
```

This test case measures how fast Lodash's `forOwn` method is compared to using native JavaScript's `Object.keys()` and `forEach()` methods. The `Object.keys()` method returns an array of the object's own enumerable property names, which can then be iterated over using `forEach()`. Both approaches are commonly used for iterating over object properties in modern JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Lodash's `forOwn`: Pros - concise and readable; Cons - adds a library dependency, which may incur overhead.
* Native keys + forEach: Pros - no additional dependencies; Cons - requires more code to set up the iteration.

2. **Keys and then forEach**
The benchmark definition uses native JavaScript's `Object.keys()` method to get an array of property names, followed by iterating over that array using `forEach()`. This approach is similar to the previous one but uses a more explicit, step-by-step approach.

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: Object.keys(obj).forEach((a) => { console.log(a) });
```

**Pros and Cons:**

* Pros - no additional dependencies; Cons - requires more code to set up the iteration.

3. **for key**
The benchmark definition uses a traditional `for...in` loop with `obj.hasOwnProperty(key)` to check if each property is present in the object itself, not in its prototype chain. This approach can be slower due to the overhead of checking for property existence.

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: for (let key in obj) { if (obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) { console.log(key, obj[key]); } }
```

**Pros and Cons:**

* Pros - no additional dependencies; Cons - potentially slower due to property existence checks.

4. **for key value**
The benchmark definition uses the `Object.entries()` method to get an array of key-value pairs, which can then be iterated over using a simple `for...of` loop. This approach is concise and readable but might incur additional overhead compared to other methods.

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(obj)) { console.log(key, value); }
```

**Pros and Cons:**

* Pros - concise and readable; Cons - potentially slower due to the overhead of creating the array of key-value pairs.

**Libraries and Special Features**

The benchmark uses Lodash's `forOwn` method, which is a utility function that allows iterating over an object's properties while providing additional features like property existence checks. The other test cases do not use any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond what's available in modern browsers.

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance benchmarks, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Warm-up**: Ensure that the benchmarking process doesn't introduce significant overhead due to repeated warm-ups.
* **Randomization**: If necessary, randomize input data or properties to avoid predictable patterns.
* **Reproducibility**: Use consistent testing environments and configurations to ensure reliable results.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider the following:

* **Native JavaScript methods:** `Object.keys()`, `forEach()`, `for...in`, `for...of`
* **Library-based solutions:** Lodash's `forOwn` method or other utility libraries like jQuery
* **Specialized performance libraries:** For example, V8's built-in micro-benchmarking tools

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
lodash forOwn	56064.3 Ops/sec
Keys and then forEach	72947.8 Ops/sec
for key	63480.6 Ops/sec
for key value	65181.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash forOwn vs Native keys + forEach 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash forOwn vs Keys and then forEach vs for key vs for key value

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash forOwn

Keys and then forEach

for key

for key value

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):