Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs Object.keys.length 22

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 100; i < len; i++) {
  obj[i] = 'value' + i;
}

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.obj);
Object.keys().length
Object.keys(window.obj).length === 0;
Object.values().length
Object.values(window.obj).length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
Object.keys().length
Object.values().length

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark consists of three test cases, each comparing two different approaches to determine if an object is empty:

1. Using `_.isEmpty` from Lodash (a utility library for JavaScript)
2. Using `Object.keys()` with a conditional check
3. Using `Object.values()` with a conditional check

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches under different conditions.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **_.isEmpty**: This function is part of Lodash, a widely-used utility library for JavaScript. It provides a concise way to check if an object is empty by verifying that its own enumerable properties have a length of 0.
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable code
		- Built-in utility library (Lodash) reduces overhead
	+ Cons:
		- Requires Lodash library, which may not be included in all environments
		- May not be as efficient as native JavaScript approaches
* **Object.keys()` with `=== 0` check**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of an object's own enumerable property names. It then checks if this array has a length of 0.
	+ Pros:
		- Native JavaScript function, reducing overhead and dependencies
		- Fast performance (native implementation)
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose code compared to _.isEmpty
* **Object.values()` with `=== 0` check**: This approach uses the `Object.values()` method to get an array of an object's own enumerable property values. It then checks if this array has a length of 0.
	+ Pros:
		- Native JavaScript function, reducing overhead and dependencies
		- Fast performance (native implementation)
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient as using `Object.keys()` with the check

**Library:**

* Lodash is a utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functional programming utilities. It is widely used in the JavaScript community and can be included in most projects.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None mentioned.

**Alternatives:**

If you prefer not to use Lodash or native JavaScript approaches, other alternatives could include:

* Using `Object.keys()` with a custom implementation for checking emptiness
* Using `JSON.stringify()` and verifying the resulting string is empty
* Using a custom function implementing the check (e.g., using `for...in` loop)

However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or concise as the approaches used in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4484.7 Safari/537.36 OPR/78.0.4072.0 (Edition developer)

Browser/OS: Opera 78 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	495551.8 Ops/sec
Object.keys().length	546910.7 Ops/sec
Object.values().length	1036431.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs Object.keys.length 22 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs Object.keys().length vs Object.values().length

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Object.keys().length

Object.values().length

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):