458

I want to know the size occupied by a JavaScript object.

Take the following function:

function Marks(){ this.maxMarks = 100; } function Student(){ this.firstName = "firstName"; this.lastName = "lastName"; this.marks = new Marks(); } 

Now I instantiate the student:

var stud = new Student(); 

so that I can do stuff like

stud.firstName = "new Firstname"; alert(stud.firstName); stud.marks.maxMarks = 200; 

etc.

Now, the stud object will occupy some size in memory. It has some data and more objects.

How do I find out how much memory the stud object occupies? Something like a sizeof() in JavaScript? It would be really awesome if I could find it out in a single function call like sizeof(stud).

I’ve been searching the Internet for months—couldn’t find it (asked in a couple of forums—no replies).

3

22 Answers 22

240

Look to the bottom od these posts to get my latest answer. I have re-factored the code in my original answer. I have removed the recursion and removed the assumed existence overhead. This is a new edit to bring it little more up-to-date in style.

function roughSizeOfObject(object) { const objectList = []; const stack = [object]; let bytes = 0; while (stack.length) { const value = stack.pop(); switch (typeof value) { case 'boolean': bytes += 4; break; case 'string': bytes += value.length * 2; break; case 'number': bytes += 8; break; case 'object': if (!objectList.includes(value)) { objectList.push(value); for (const prop in value) { if (value.hasOwnProperty(prop)) { stack.push(value[prop]); } } } break; } } return bytes; } 
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

31 Comments

you may want to think of the object keys as well
Anyone who landed here looking for the smallest type for the purposes of false/true, it seems to be undefined/null.
"よんもじ".length is 4 in Javascript, but are you sure it's 8 bytes, as your code returns it?
Yep. Characters in JavaScript are stored according to ECMA-262 3rd Edition Specification - bclary.com/2004/11/07/#a-4.3.16
This function do not count references hidden in closures. For example var a={n:1}; var b={a:function(){return a}}; roughSizeOfObject(b) — here b holds reference to a, but roughSizeOfObject() returns 0.
|
170

The Google Chrome Heap Profiler allows you to inspect object memory use.

You need to be able to locate the object in the trace which can be tricky. If you pin the object to the Window global, it is pretty easy to find from the "Containment" listing mode.

In the attached screenshot, I created an object called "testObj" on the window. I then located in the profiler (after making a recording) and it shows the full size of the object and everything in it under "retained size".

More details on the memory breakdowns.

Chrome profiler

In the above screenshot, the object shows a retained size of 60. I believe the unit is bytes here.

4 Comments

This answer solved my problem along with : developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/docs/… . Quick tip : take a quick Heap Snapshot, run the task you suspect is leaking, take a new quick Heap Snapshot and select the comparison view at the bottom. It makes obvious what objects were created between the two snapshots.
Comparison, mentioned by @Johnride, is now a pulldown menu at the top.
Shallow size seems as 40 for both of { a:"55c2067aee27593c03b7acbe", b:"55c2067aee27593c03b7acbe", c:null, d:undefined } and { c:null, d:undefined } objects. Is it OK?
You can use the Google Chrome Heap Profiler from node too. If you have node v8 or above start it with node --inspect and in Chrome enter about:inspect in the URL bar and look for opening the Node inspector. Create your object in the node CLI and then take a heap snapshot.
111

Sometimes I use this to flag really big objects that might be going to the client from the server. It doesn't represent the in memory footprint. It just gets you approximately what it'd cost to send it, or store it.

Also note, it's slow, dev only. But for getting an ballpark answer with one line of code it's been useful for me.

roughObjSize = JSON.stringify(bigObject).length; 

9 Comments

From my tests, this method is considerably faster than the object-sizeof case because it doesn't have the slow _.isObject() call from lodash. In addition the sizes returned are pretty comparable for rough estimates. Gist gist.github.com/owenallenaz/ff77fc98081708146495 .
Can't use with circular structures VM1409:1 Uncaught TypeError: Converting circular structure to JSON :( still useful though
this is not binary size in bytes but simple to use to get approximate size
This is pretty great if 1) you only need a ballpark estimate 2) you know you don't have any circular references 3) you can omit large values and messure them separately. All of these were true in my case so works perfectly, I only had one big string at one place which I can just measure length on.
|
82

I just wrote this to solve a similar (ish) problem. It doesn't exactly do what you may be looking for, ie it doesn't take into account how the interpreter stores the object.

But, if you are using V8, it should give you a fairly ok approximation as the awesome prototyping and hidden classes lick up most of the overhead.

function roughSizeOfObject( object ) { var objectList = []; var recurse = function( value ) { var bytes = 0; if ( typeof value === 'boolean' ) { bytes = 4; } else if ( typeof value === 'string' ) { bytes = value.length * 2; } else if ( typeof value === 'number' ) { bytes = 8; } else if ( typeof value === 'object' && objectList.indexOf( value ) === -1 ) { objectList[ objectList.length ] = value; for( i in value ) { bytes+= 8; // an assumed existence overhead bytes+= recurse( value[i] ) } } return bytes; } return recurse( object ); } 

Comments

80

Here's a slightly more compact solution to the problem:

const typeSizes = { "undefined": () => 0, "boolean": () => 4, "number": () => 8, "string": item => 2 * item.length, "object": item => !item ? 0 : Object .keys(item) .reduce((total, key) => sizeOf(key) + sizeOf(item[key]) + total, 0) }; const sizeOf = value => typeSizes[typeof value](value); 

8 Comments

so this is the size in KB? or bits?
@vincent-thorpe It's in bytes.
Nice script, needs modifications for cyclic references though.
I've just tested your algorithm on a huge array of data within a node process, it reports 13GB, but node is consuming 22GB, any idea about where the difference comes from? There is nothing more in memory.
@JosuGoñi, they don't calculate how much the object itself takes, only its value. All objects take more space than just their value, otherwise typeof ... would not work.
|
61

There is a NPM module to get object sizeof, you can install it with npm install object-sizeof

 var sizeof = require('object-sizeof'); // 2B per character, 6 chars total => 12B console.log(sizeof({abc: 'def'})); // 8B for Number => 8B console.log(sizeof(12345)); var param = { 'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'c': { 'd': 4 } }; // 4 one two-bytes char strings and 3 eighth-bytes numbers => 32B console.log(sizeof(param)); 

5 Comments

sizeof(new Date()) === 0 and sizeof({}) === 0. Is that intended?
@PhilippClaßen Obviously it is. Both objects have no properties.
This doesn't seem too useful. It provides some theoretical number akin to C sizeof semantics, but not the actual amount of memory used. Objects themselves consume space (so sizeof(new Date()) should be >0), and JS engines save memory by deduping strings and storing them in single-byte encodings when possible, for example.
@Robert @Philipp Claßen But an empty object still occupies memory space. It has at least a refecente to it's prototype (the __proto__ implicit property) and probably others I'm not aware of. And, in the case of the Date object, it has at least the reference to the moment of time it refers to. sizeof can't read it's properties because Date is written in native code. Also, sizeof uses for ... in loop to read object properties so it also don't count symbol properties and private fields.
this library took 30 seconds to download and then didn't even work
18

This is a hacky method, but i tried it twice with different numbers and it seems to be consistent.

What you can do is to try and allocate a huge number of objects, like one or two million objects of the kind you want. Put the objects in an array to prevent the garbage collector from releasing them (note that this will add a slight memory overhead because of the array, but i hope this shouldn't matter and besides if you are going to worry about objects being in memory, you store them somewhere). Add an alert before and after the allocation and in each alert check how much memory the Firefox process is taking. Before you open the page with the test, make sure you have a fresh Firefox instance. Open the page, note the memory usage after the "before" alert is shown. Close the alert, wait for the memory to be allocated. Subtract the new memory from the older and divide it by the amount of allocations. Example:

function Marks() { this.maxMarks = 100; } function Student() { this.firstName = "firstName"; this.lastName = "lastName"; this.marks = new Marks(); } var manyObjects = new Array(); alert('before'); for (var i=0; i<2000000; i++) manyObjects[i] = new Student(); alert('after'); 

I tried this in my computer and the process had 48352K of memory when the "before" alert was shown. After the allocation, Firefox had 440236K of memory. For 2million allocations, this is about 200 bytes for each object.

I tried it again with 1million allocations and the result was similar: 196 bytes per object (i suppose the extra data in 2mill was used for Array).

So, here is a hacky method that might help you. JavaScript doesn't provide a "sizeof" method for a reason: each JavaScript implementaion is different. In Google Chrome for example the same page uses about 66 bytes for each object (judging from the task manager at least).

2 Comments

Hey.. thanks for the technique. I was having that as plan B incase no direct way was there to measure memory usage.
Each C and C++ implementation is also different. ;) The size of a data type in C or C++ is implementation specific. I see no reason JavaScript couldn't support such an operator, though it wouldn't serve the same purpose or have the same meaning as it does in C or C++ (which are lower-level languages and measure the actual size of a fixed-size data type at compile time as opposed to the variable-size of a dynamic JavaScript object at run-time).
13

Sorry I could not comment, so I just continue the work from tomwrong. This enhanced version will not count object more than once, thus no infinite loop. Plus, I reckon the key of an object should be also counted, roughly.

function roughSizeOfObject( value, level ) { if(level == undefined) level = 0; var bytes = 0; if ( typeof value === 'boolean' ) { bytes = 4; } else if ( typeof value === 'string' ) { bytes = value.length * 2; } else if ( typeof value === 'number' ) { bytes = 8; } else if ( typeof value === 'object' ) { if(value['__visited__']) return 0; value['__visited__'] = 1; for( i in value ) { bytes += i.length * 2; bytes+= 8; // an assumed existence overhead bytes+= roughSizeOfObject( value[i], 1 ) } } if(level == 0){ clear__visited__(value); } return bytes; } function clear__visited__(value){ if(typeof value == 'object'){ delete value['__visited__']; for(var i in value){ clear__visited__(value[i]); } } } roughSizeOfObject(a); 

5 Comments

I think this is more accurate as it's counting keys, although it does count the '__visited__' key
Checking typeof value === 'object'is not enough and you'll have exceptions if the value is null.
This was blazing fast for my object (which I'm pretty confident have way over 5mb), in comparison with any of @tomwrong's duped answers. It was also more accurate (as it said 3mb or so) but still way too far from reality. Any clues on what it may not be counting?
Doesn't work for me. Object level contains data but roughSizeOfObject(level) returns zero. (My variable level is not to be confused with your argument, of course. I don't think that variable shadowing should cause an issue here, and also when I rename the 'level' in your script I get the same result.) Screenshot: snipboard.io/G7E5yj.jpg
this was awesome but I did have to trap for null value to get it to work. Thank you
12

Having the same problem. I searched on Google and I want to share with stackoverflow community this solution.

Important:

I used the function shared by Yan Qing on github https://gist.github.com/zensh/4975495

function memorySizeOf(obj) { var bytes = 0; function sizeOf(obj) { if(obj !== null && obj !== undefined) { switch(typeof obj) { case 'number': bytes += 8; break; case 'string': bytes += obj.length * 2; break; case 'boolean': bytes += 4; break; case 'object': var objClass = Object.prototype.toString.call(obj).slice(8, -1); if(objClass === 'Object' || objClass === 'Array') { for(var key in obj) { if(!obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) continue; sizeOf(obj[key]); } } else bytes += obj.toString().length * 2; break; } } return bytes; }; function formatByteSize(bytes) { if(bytes < 1024) return bytes + " bytes"; else if(bytes < 1048576) return(bytes / 1024).toFixed(3) + " KiB"; else if(bytes < 1073741824) return(bytes / 1048576).toFixed(3) + " MiB"; else return(bytes / 1073741824).toFixed(3) + " GiB"; }; return formatByteSize(sizeOf(obj)); }; var sizeOfStudentObject = memorySizeOf({Student: {firstName: 'firstName', lastName: 'lastName', marks: 10}}); console.log(sizeOfStudentObject);

What do you think about it?

2 Comments

This misses functions. If I add a function, the object doesn't show as any larger
Doesnt count keys
8

i want to know if my memory reduction efforts actually help in reducing memory

Following up on this comment, here's what you should do: Try to produce a memory problem - Write code that creates all these objects and graudally increase the upper limit until you ran into a problem (Browser crash, Browser freeze or an Out-Of-memory error). Ideally you should repeat this experiment with different browsers and different operating system.

Now there are two options: option 1 - You didn't succeed in producing the memory problem. Hence, you are worrying for nothing. You don't have a memory issue and your program is fine.

option 2- you did get a memory problem. Now ask yourself whether the limit at which the problem occurred is reasonable (in other words: is it likely that this amount of objects will be created at normal use of your code). If the answer is 'No' then you're fine. Otherwise you now know how many objects your code can create. Rework the algorithm such that it does not breach this limit.

2 Comments

From a memory stand point, my extension adds a number of objects for each page/tab that is open in Firefox. The "number" is proportional to the size of the page. Assuming that "power" users have anywhere between 15 - 20 tabs open, and if the web page has a lot of contents, the browser becomes slow and frustratingly non-responsive after some time. This happens even without me explicitly trying to stress the app. I have plans to rewrite the code that I think will reduce a lot of object creation. I just wanted to be sure that the no. of objects reduced amounted to something so that it is worth it
@Senthil: but object size has no meaning unless you know amount of available memory. Since amount of memory is likely to remain a mystery, speaking in terms of #objects is just as useful as speaking in term of #bytes
6

This Javascript library sizeof.js does the same thing. Include it like this

<script type="text/javascript" src="sizeof.js"></script> 

The sizeof function takes an object as a parameter and returns its approximate size in bytes. For example:

// define an object var object = { 'boolean' : true, 'number' : 1, 'string' : 'a', 'array' : [1, 2, 3] }; // determine the size of the object var size = sizeof(object); 

The sizeof function can handle objects that contain multiple references to other objects and recursive references.

Originally published here.

1 Comment

This is slower and appears to be "less precise" than @liangliang 's, in my usage case.
5

If your main concern is the memory usage of your Firefox extension, I suggest checking with Mozilla developers.

Mozilla provides on its wiki a list of tools to analyze memory leaks.

Comments

5

Chrome developer tools has this functionality. I found this article very helpful and does exactly what you want: https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/docs/heap-profiling

Comments

3

The accepted answer does not work with Map, Set, WeakMap and other iterable objects. (The package object-sizeof, mentioned in other answer, has the same problem).

Here's my fix

export function roughSizeOfObject(object) { const objectList = []; const stack = [object]; const bytes = [0]; while (stack.length) { const value = stack.pop(); if (value == null) bytes[0] += 4; else if (typeof value === 'boolean') bytes[0] += 4; else if (typeof value === 'string') bytes[0] += value.length * 2; else if (typeof value === 'number') bytes[0] += 8; else if (typeof value === 'object' && objectList.indexOf(value) === -1) { objectList.push(value); if (typeof value.byteLength === 'number') bytes[0] += value.byteLength; else if (value[Symbol.iterator]) { // eslint-disable-next-line no-restricted-syntax for (const v of value) stack.push(v); } else { Object.keys(value).forEach(k => { bytes[0] += k.length * 2; stack.push(value[k]); }); } } } return bytes[0]; } 

It also includes some other minor improvements: counts keys storage and works with ArrayBuffer.

Comments

2
function sizeOf(parent_data, size) { for (var prop in parent_data) { let value = parent_data[prop]; if (typeof value === 'boolean') { size += 4; } else if (typeof value === 'string') { size += value.length * 2; } else if (typeof value === 'number') { size += 8; } else { let oldSize = size; size += sizeOf(value, oldSize) - oldSize; } } return size; } function roughSizeOfObject(object) { let size = 0; for each (let prop in object) { size += sizeOf(prop, 0); } // for.. return size; } 

Comments

2

Many thanks to everyone that has been working on code for this!

I just wanted to add that I've been looking for exactly the same thing, but in my case it's for managing a cache of processed objects to avoid having to re-parse and process objects from ajax calls that may or may not have been cached by the browser. This is especially useful for objects that require a lot of processing, usually anything that isn't in JSON format, but it can get very costly to keep these things cached in a large project or an app/extension that is left running for a long time.

Anyway, I use it for something something like:

var myCache = { cache: {}, order: [], size: 0, maxSize: 2 * 1024 * 1024, // 2mb add: function(key, object) { // Otherwise add new object var size = this.getObjectSize(object); if (size > this.maxSize) return; // Can't store this object var total = this.size + size; // Check for existing entry, as replacing it will free up space if (typeof(this.cache[key]) !== 'undefined') { for (var i = 0; i < this.order.length; ++i) { var entry = this.order[i]; if (entry.key === key) { total -= entry.size; this.order.splice(i, 1); break; } } } while (total > this.maxSize) { var entry = this.order.shift(); delete this.cache[entry.key]; total -= entry.size; } this.cache[key] = object; this.order.push({ size: size, key: key }); this.size = total; }, get: function(key) { var value = this.cache[key]; if (typeof(value) !== 'undefined') { // Return this key for longer for (var i = 0; i < this.order.length; ++i) { var entry = this.order[i]; if (entry.key === key) { this.order.splice(i, 1); this.order.push(entry); break; } } } return value; }, getObjectSize: function(object) { // Code from above estimating functions }, }; 

It's a simplistic example and may have some errors, but it gives the idea, as you can use it to hold onto static objects (contents won't change) with some degree of intelligence. This can significantly cut down on any expensive processing requirements that the object had to be produced in the first place.

Comments

1

I use Chrome dev tools' Timeline tab, instantiate increasingly large amounts of objects, and get good estimates like that. You can use html like this one below, as boilerplate, and modify it to better simulate the characteristics of your objects (number and types of properties, etc...). You may want to click the trash bit icon at the bottom of that dev tools tab, before and after a run.

<html> <script> var size = 1000*100 window.onload = function() { document.getElementById("quantifier").value = size } function scaffold() { console.log("processing Scaffold..."); a = new Array } function start() { size = document.getElementById("quantifier").value console.log("Starting... quantifier is " + size); console.log("starting test") for (i=0; i<size; i++){ a[i]={"some" : "thing"} } console.log("done...") } function tearDown() { console.log("processing teardown"); a.length=0 } </script> <body> <span style="color:green;">Quantifier:</span> <input id="quantifier" style="color:green;" type="text"></input> <button onclick="scaffold()">Scaffold</button> <button onclick="start()">Start</button> <button onclick="tearDown()">Clean</button> <br/> </body> </html> 

Instantiating 2 million objects of just one property each (as in this code above) leads to a rough calculation of 50 bytes per object, on my Chromium, right now. Changing the code to create a random string per object adds some 30 bytes per object, etc. Hope this helps.

Comments

1

I had problems with the above answer with an ArrayBuffer. After checking the documentation, I found that ArrayBuffer has a byteLength property which tells me exactly what I need, hence:

function sizeOf(data) { if (typeof(data) === 'object') { if (data instanceof ArrayBuffer) { return data.byteLength; } // other objects goes here } // non-object cases goes here } console.log(sizeOf(new ArrayBuffer(15))); // 15

Reference:

1 Comment

"Above answer" isn't really a useful reference on SO, as the order answers appear in changes according to the chosen sorting logic, or passage of time - perhaps link the answer that your answer supercedes?
1

Building upon the already compact solution from @Dan, here's a self-contained function version of it. Variable names are reduced to single letters for those who just want it to be as compact as possible at the expense of context.

const ns = {}; ns.sizeof = function(v) { let f = ns.sizeof, //this needs to match the name of the function itself, since arguments.callee.name is defunct o = { "undefined": () => 0, "boolean": () => 4, "number": () => 8, "string": i => 2 * i.length, "object": i => !i ? 0 : Object .keys(i) .reduce((t, k) => f(k) + f(i[k]) + t, 0) }; return o[typeof v](v); }; ns.undef; ns.bool = true; ns.num = 1; ns.string = "Hello"; ns.obj = { first_name: 'John', last_name: 'Doe', born: new Date(1980, 1, 1), favorite_foods: ['Pizza', 'Salad', 'Indian', 'Sushi'], can_juggle: true }; console.log(ns.sizeof(ns.undef)); console.log(ns.sizeof(ns.bool)); console.log(ns.sizeof(ns.num)); console.log(ns.sizeof(ns.string)); console.log(ns.sizeof(ns.obj)); console.log(ns.sizeof(ns.obj.favorite_foods));

Comments

0

This is another improvement to my original answer as things have moved forward.

function roughSizeOfObject(object) { const stack = [object]; const seen = new WeakSet(); let bytes = 0; while (stack.length) { const value = stack.pop(); switch (typeof value) { case 'boolean': bytes += 4; break; case 'string': bytes += value.length * 2; // UTF-16 assumption break; case 'number': bytes += 8; // IEEE-754 double break; case 'bigint': bytes += 8; // very rough break; case 'symbol': case 'function': case 'undefined': break; case 'object': if (value === null) break; if (seen.has(value)) break; seen.add(value); // Count object overhead – completely engine-dependent bytes += 16; // Handle Maps, Sets, etc. if (value instanceof Map) { stack.push(...value.keys(), ...value.values()); break; } if (value instanceof Set) { stack.push(...value.values()); break; } if (ArrayBuffer.isView(value)) { bytes += value.byteLength; break; } if (value instanceof ArrayBuffer) { bytes += value.byteLength; break; } // Walk own keys (including non-enumerable & symbols) for (const key of Reflect.ownKeys(value)) { bytes += key.toString().length * 2; // key size stack.push(value[key]); } break; } } return bytes; } 

Comments

-3

I believe you forgot to include 'array'.

 typeOf : function(value) { var s = typeof value; if (s === 'object') { if (value) { if (typeof value.length === 'number' && !(value.propertyIsEnumerable('length')) && typeof value.splice === 'function') { s = 'array'; } } else { s = 'null'; } } return s; }, estimateSizeOfObject: function(value, level) { if(undefined === level) level = 0; var bytes = 0; if ('boolean' === typeOf(value)) bytes = 4; else if ('string' === typeOf(value)) bytes = value.length * 2; else if ('number' === typeOf(value)) bytes = 8; else if ('object' === typeOf(value) || 'array' === typeOf(value)) { for(var i in value) { bytes += i.length * 2; bytes+= 8; // an assumed existence overhead bytes+= estimateSizeOfObject(value[i], 1) } } return bytes; }, formatByteSize : function(bytes) { if (bytes < 1024) return bytes + " bytes"; else { var floatNum = bytes/1024; return floatNum.toFixed(2) + " kb"; } }, 

1 Comment

In JS, an array is an object. There may be some optimizations in implementations, but conceptually arrays and objects are the same.
-8

I know this is absolutely not the right way to do it, yet it've helped me a few times in the past to get the approx object file size:

Write your object/response to the console or a new tab, copy the results to a new notepad file, save it, and check the file size. The notepad file itself is just a few bytes, so you'll get a fairly accurate object file size.

3 Comments

This is completely wrong. For example consider number 1/3 = 0.3333333333333333. It will be 18 bytes using your approach.
I said it was approximate. Sometimes you don't care if it's 1MB or 1.00001MB, you just want to know an estimate, then this method is perfectly fine.
Cheeky solution X]