Benchmark: _.isEmpty() vs Object.keys().length populated objects

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(i=0; i<10000; i++){
	window.obj[i] = i;
}

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.keys
_.isEmpty

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches for checking if an object is empty: using the `Object.keys()` method native to JavaScript, and using the `_` (Lodash) library's `isEmpty()` function. The test cases are designed to populate a large object with 10,000 properties and then measure the execution time of each approach.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Object.keys()**: This method returns an array of strings representing the property names of an object. By checking if this array is empty, we can determine if the original object has any properties.
2. **_.isEmpty()` (Lodash)**: This function takes an object as input and returns a boolean indicating whether the object is empty.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Object.keys()**:
	+ Pros: Native to JavaScript, potentially faster execution since it doesn't require an external library.
	+ Cons: Requires accessing the property names of the object, which may have performance implications for large objects.
* **_.isEmpty()` (Lodash)**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more concise than using `Object.keys()`, since it directly checks if the object is empty without requiring additional property name lookups.
	+ Cons: Requires an external library (Lodash), which adds a dependency to the benchmark.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, the `isEmpty()` function is used to check if an object is empty.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax (None in this case)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches for checking if an object is empty.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using `Object.getOwnPropertyNames()` instead of `Object.keys()`, which returns both own and inherited property names.
* Using a simple check like `if (Object.keys(obj).length === 0)` or `if (!obj || Object.keys(obj).length === 0)`, which is more concise but may not be as readable as the original approach.

However, it's worth noting that these alternatives might not offer significant performance benefits for small to medium-sized objects. For very large objects, you might need to explore other optimization techniques or consider using a different data structure altogether.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.keys	2544.9 Ops/sec
_.isEmpty	2444.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

Need to compare populated objects between lodash and Object.keys() native method.

Comparing performance of: Object.keys vs _.isEmpty

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.keys

_.isEmpty

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):