Benchmark: test empty object

Tests:

stringify
var test = {}; if(JSON.stringify(test) === '{}') { return true; }
object.keys
var test = {}; if(!Object.keys(test).length) { return true; }
object.values
var test = {}; if(!Object.values(test).length) { return true; }
getOwnPropertyNames
var test = {}; if (Object.getOwnPropertyNames(test).length === 0){ return true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
stringify
object.keys
object.values
getOwnPropertyNames

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines a simple test case. In this case, there are four different test cases:

1. `test empty object`: This test case checks if an empty object can be created and compared using `JSON.stringify()`.
2. `stringify`: This test case checks the performance of comparing an empty object to its JSON representation using `JSON.stringify()`.
3. `object.keys`, `object.values`, and `getOwnPropertyNames`: These three test cases check the performance of checking if an object is empty by iterating over its keys, values, or property names, respectively.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares different approaches for each test case:

1. `stringify`:
	* Direct comparison using `JSON.stringify(test) === '{}'`
2. `object.keys`, `object.values`, and `getOwnPropertyNames`:
	* Iterating over the keys, values, or property names of an empty object to check if it's empty
	* Using the length property to check if the iteration yielded any results

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. `stringify`:
	+ Pros: Simple and concise, can be faster for small objects.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly for very large or complex objects, may have performance issues for certain browsers or versions.
2. Iterating over keys, values, or property names:
	+ Pros: Can handle larger and more complex objects, more reliable results.
	+ Cons: May be slower than direct comparison, requires more code.

**Libraries Used**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `JSON.stringify()` function is a built-in JavaScript feature that converts an object to a JSON string. The `.length` property is also a built-in property that returns the number of elements in an array-like object.

**Other Considerations**

When benchmarking performance-critical code, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Data size and complexity
* Browser or engine version
* Hardware platform
* Execution count and frequency

In this case, the test cases cover relatively simple scenarios, but they provide a good starting point for understanding how different approaches can affect performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite (for Chrome-specific benchmarks)
* jsPerf (a popular online benchmarking tool)
* Node.js Performance Benchmarks
* WebAssembly benchmarks

These tools and suites provide a range of test cases and scenarios to help you evaluate the performance of your code in different environments.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.167 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 64 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
stringify	2042367.1 Ops/sec
object.keys	5533401.5 Ops/sec
object.values	4009676.2 Ops/sec
getOwnPropertyNames	3644440.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test empty object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: stringify vs object.keys vs object.values vs getOwnPropertyNames

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

stringify

object.keys

object.values

getOwnPropertyNames

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):