Benchmark: lodash map vs native map (v4)

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ a: 'a', b: 1 });

Tests:

native
data.map(({a, b}) => `${a}_${b}`)
lodash
_.map(data, ({a, b}) => `${a}_${b}`)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native	8.7 Ops/sec
lodash	8.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using native JavaScript `map()` function and using Lodash's `_.map()` function to transform an array of objects.

**Options Compared**

* Native JavaScript `map()` function (the default way to perform a map operation in JavaScript)
* Lodash's `_.map()` function, which is a utility library that provides various helper functions for functional programming

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native JavaScript `map()` function:**
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in and widely supported by most modern browsers
		- Simple to use and understand
		- Can be optimized by the browser's Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler
	+ Cons:
		- May not perform as well as specialized libraries like Lodash for large datasets or complex transformations
* **Lodash's `_.map()` function:**
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster than native JavaScript `map()` for large datasets due to its optimized implementation and caching of intermediate results
		- Provides additional features and utilities that can simplify code
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an extra dependency (the Lodash library) and may have slower startup times
		- May add unnecessary complexity to the codebase

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `_.map()` function. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various helper functions for functional programming, data manipulation, and more.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some versions of JavaScript, such as ES6+ (ECMAScript 2015 and later), introduced new features like arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`${}`) which are used in the `map()` function calls.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to consider for transforming arrays in JavaScript include:

* Using Array.prototype.reduce() instead of map()
* Using a for loop or a custom iterator function
* Utilizing modern libraries like Ramda or John Resig's Underscore.js (which is similar to Lodash)
* Leveraging browser-specific APIs, such as WebAssembly or Worker threads

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Let me know if you'd like further clarification!

Related benchmarks:

lodash map vs native map (v4) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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