Benchmark: Filter: Lodash vs Native - same filter

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Native filter
data.filter(x => x.filtering)
Lodash filter
_.filter(x => x.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:

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website allows users to create JavaScript microbenchmarks, which are small programs designed to measure the performance of specific parts of a program or library. In this case, we have two test cases: "Native filter" and "Lodash filter".

**Test Cases**

There are only two test cases in this benchmark:

1. **Native filter**: This test case measures the performance of the JavaScript `filter()` method without any libraries.
2. **Lodash filter**: This test case measures the performance of the Lodash library's `filter()` function.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two approaches:

* Using the native JavaScript `filter()` method
* Using the Lodash library's `filter()` function

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Native filter:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies (no extra bytes to load)
* May be faster since it doesn't involve a library call
* Easier to implement and understand

Cons:

* May require more manual optimization and fine-tuning
* Can be slower due to the overhead of function calls and lookups in the array

**Lodash filter:**

Pros:

* Convenient and easy-to-use API
* Often optimized for performance by the library authors
* Reduces boilerplate code and makes it easier to maintain

Cons:

* Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library)
* May introduce additional overhead due to the library call
* Can be slower than native implementations, especially if the library is not optimized for this particular use case

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions and helpers for various tasks. In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `filter()` function, which allows developers to filter arrays in a concise and readable way.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other aspects of JavaScript performance, you can consider looking into areas like:

* Async/await vs traditional callbacks
* Promises vs traditional callbacks
* Arrow functions vs traditional function declarations
* etc.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches or test cases, here are a few ideas:

* Test the performance of different sorting algorithms (e.g., `sort()`, `Array.prototype.sort()` with a custom comparator)
* Compare the performance of native JavaScript methods (`indexOf()`, `includes()`) vs equivalent Lodash functions
* Measure the performance of different array manipulation techniques (e.g., `map()`, `forEach()`)
* Test the performance of different data structures (e.g., arrays, objects, sets)

Feel free to experiment and create your own benchmarks!

Related benchmarks:

Filter: Lodash vs Native - same filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter vs Lodash filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native filter

Lodash filter

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):