Benchmark: Filter: Lodash 2 vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@2.4.2/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Native filter
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering)
Lodash filter
_.filter(data, 'filtering')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter
Lodash filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native filter	107.9 Ops/sec
Lodash filter	200.6 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 benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is provided in JSON format, which includes:

* `Script Preparation Code`: This code sets up the data for the benchmark, creating an array of 1 million objects with two properties: `filtering` (true) and `mapping` (42).
* `Html Preparation Code`: This code loads the Lodash library from a CDN. The version used is Lodash 2.4.2.

The benchmark definition is not explicitly stated, but it appears to be comparing the performance of native JavaScript filtering versus using the Lodash library's filter function.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **Native Filter**: This test case uses the native JavaScript `filter()` method to filter the data array.
2. **Lodash Filter**: This test case uses the Lodash library's `_.filter()` function to filter the data array.

**Comparison of Options:**

The main difference between these two options is that one uses native JavaScript, while the other uses a third-party library (Lodash).

Pros and Cons:

* **Native JavaScript:**
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster performance since it doesn't incur the overhead of loading an external library.
		- Less memory usage since no additional library code needs to be loaded.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more complex implementation, especially for large datasets or complex filtering logic.
* **Lodash Filter:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to implement, especially for simple filtering logic.
		- Often provides more robust and feature-rich filtering capabilities compared to native JavaScript.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower performance since it needs to load the external library and execute the library's code.
		- Larger memory usage due to the additional library code.

**Lodash Library:**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object manipulation, and string manipulation. In this benchmark, it's being used specifically for its `filter()` function, which applies a predicate function to each element in an array and returns a new array with only the elements that satisfy the predicate.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript features like arrays, objects, and functions.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to use an alternative library for filtering data, some options could be:

* Moment.js (for date manipulation)
* jQuery (for DOM manipulation)
* React or other libraries for client-side rendering and state management
* Other utility libraries like Ramda or John McCutcheon's Lodash equivalent

However, it's worth noting that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Filter: Lodash 2 vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter vs Lodash filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native filter

Lodash filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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