Benchmark: filter: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var randomArray = Array.apply(null, Array(100)).map(function() {
	return Math.round(Math.random() * 1000);
});

function isBigEnough (value) {
  return value >= 10
}

// Underscore was loaded last, so this saves an instance of underscore and resets _ to it's previous value (lodash).
var _underscore = _.noConflict();
// This saves an instance of lodash and resets _ to it's previous value (undefined).
var _lodash = _.noConflict();

Tests:

Native
var filtered = randomArray.filter(isBigEnough);
Underscore
var filtered = _underscore.filter(randomArray, isBigEnough);
Lodash
var filtered = _lodash.filter(randomArray, isBigEnough);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Underscore
Lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:153.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/153.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 153 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Underscore

3.2M/s

Native

3.1M/s

Lodash

3.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Underscore	3,189,715 Ops/sec
Native	3,141,390 Ops/sec
Lodash	3,084,208 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches to filter an array of 100 random integers in JavaScript:

1. **Native**: The built-in `Array.prototype.filter()` method, which uses a simple iterative approach.
2. **Underscore**: A popular utility library for functional programming, which provides a `filter()` method implementation.
3. **Lodash**: Another well-known utility library, also providing a `filter()` method.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach:

* Native: The built-in `Array.prototype.filter()` method, which uses a simple iterative approach.
* Underscore: The `filter()` method implementation provided by the Underscore library.
* Lodash: The `filter()` method implementation provided by the Lodash library.

**Pros and cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* **Native**: Pros:
	+ Fast, since it uses built-in methods and doesn't require any additional overhead.
	+ Low memory usage.
* Cons:
	+ May have performance issues for large arrays due to the iterative approach.
* **Underscore**: Pros:
	+ Provides a convenient, functional programming-style interface for filtering arrays.
	+ Can be useful for developers who prefer this style of programming.
* Cons:
	+ Requires including an additional library in the test environment.
	+ May have slightly higher overhead compared to native methods.
* **Lodash**: Pros:
	+ Also provides a functional programming-style interface, but with more features than Underscore.
	+ Can be useful for developers who prefer this style of programming and need more functionality.
* Cons:
	+ Requires including an additional library in the test environment.
	+ May have higher overhead compared to native methods.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses two utility libraries:

1. **Underscore**: A popular utility library for functional programming, which provides a `filter()` method implementation.
2. **Lodash**: Another well-known utility library, also providing a `filter()` method implementation.

Both libraries are loaded last in the test environment, as specified in the benchmark configuration, to avoid conflicts with other libraries or built-in methods.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

None of the approaches mentioned above use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. They all rely on standard JavaScript features and methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in alternative filtering methods, here are a few examples:

* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` and `Array.prototype.some()`:
```javascript
var filtered = randomArray.reduce((acc, value) => {
  if (value >= 10) {
    acc.push(value);
  }
  return acc;
}, []);
```
* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` and `if` statements:
```javascript
var filtered = [];
randomArray.forEach(function(value) {
  if (value >= 10) {
    filtered.push(value);
  }
});
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to the native, Underscore, or Lodash approaches.

filter: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Underscore vs Lodash`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Native

Underscore

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

filter: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Native

Underscore

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Underscore vs Lodash`