Benchmark: lodash vs pure - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var firstEqual = [];
var secondEqual = [];
var third = {};

for (var i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++) {
    firstEqual.push(i);
    secondEqual.push(i);
    third[i] = true;
}

var arrayToDedup = [...firstEqual, ...secondEqual];

Tests:

lodash
_.uniq(arrayToDedup);
pure
Object.keys(third).map(no => Number(no));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
pure

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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.

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `lodash` and `pure`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of removing duplicate elements from an array using different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates three variables: `firstEqual`, `secondEqual`, and `third`. It then populates these arrays with numbers from 0 to 1,000,000 using a `for` loop. The third array (`third`) is also used to test the performance of converting its keys to numbers.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.17.5.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **_.uniq(arrayToDedup)**: This test case uses the `lodash` library's `uniq()` function to remove duplicate elements from the `arrayToDedup` array, which is created by concatenating `firstEqual` and `secondEqual`.
2. **Object.keys(third).map(no => Number(no))**: This test case uses a pure JavaScript approach to convert the keys of the `third` object to numbers.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches differ in their use of external libraries:

* Lodash (`_.uniq(arrayToDedup)`) uses an external library to provide a simple and efficient way to remove duplicates from an array.
* Pure JavaScript (`Object.keys(third).map(no => Number(no))`) relies on built-in JavaScript methods and does not require any external libraries.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash (`.uniq(arrayToDedup)`):**

Pros:

* Easy to use and understand
* Provides a simple and efficient way to remove duplicates from an array
* Relies on optimized internal algorithms

Cons:

* Requires loading the Lodash library, which may introduce overhead
* May not be suitable for all environments or use cases

**Pure JavaScript (`Object.keys(third).map(no => Number(no))`):**

Pros:

* Does not require any external libraries, making it suitable for environments with limited dependencies
* Relies on built-in JavaScript methods, which are generally optimized and efficient

Cons:

* May be more verbose and less intuitive than using an external library like Lodash
* Requires a deeper understanding of JavaScript's built-in methods and their behavior

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: Lodash's optimized internal algorithms may provide better performance for large datasets.
* Code readability and maintainability: Pure JavaScript code may be more verbose but also easier to understand and modify.
* Dependencies: If you're working in an environment with limited dependencies or want to ensure no external libraries are loaded, the pure JavaScript approach might be a better choice.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The Lodash library provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `uniq()` function is used to remove duplicate elements from an array.

Keep in mind that using external libraries can introduce dependencies and overhead, so it's essential to weigh the benefits against the potential drawbacks when choosing a library or implementing custom solutions.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs pure (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs pure

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

pure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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