Benchmark: native min vs lodash _.minBy

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

Native
// Native Math.min(users.map((c) => c.age))
LoDash
_.minBy(users, "age").age

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: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	7349803.5 Ops/sec
LoDash	24588094.0 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, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to find the minimum age in an array: using the native `Math.min()` function with `map()` and the spread operator, versus using Lodash's `_minBy()` function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native Approach**: Using the native `Math.min()` function with `map()`.
2. **Lodash Approach**: Using Lodash's `_minBy()` function to find the minimum age in the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native Approach

Pros:

* Typically faster since it avoids the overhead of a library function call.
* Often more memory-efficient, as it doesn't require loading an additional library.
* Usually has lower latency, since the native function is optimized for performance.

Cons:

* Requires that `Math.min()` and `map()` are supported by the target environment (e.g., older browsers or environments without modern JavaScript features).
* May not handle edge cases or errors as robustly as a dedicated library function.

### Lodash Approach

Pros:

* Often more readable, since it clearly expresses the intent of finding the minimum value.
* Handles edge cases and errors more robustly, ensuring predictable behavior.
* Can be more maintainable, as the logic is encapsulated in a reusable library function.

Cons:

* Typically slower due to the overhead of loading and executing the Lodash library function.
* May be less memory-efficient, since it requires loading an additional library.
* Can have higher latency, as the library function needs to be executed before returning the result.

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of reusable functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this case, `_minBy()` is used to find the minimum value in an array based on a given property (in this case, `age`).

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser Support**: The benchmark assumes that both Firefox 129 (based on Mozilla/5.0) and desktop environments are supported. In practice, you may want to test for other browsers or environments to ensure compatibility.
* **Performance Impact**: The Lodash approach can introduce additional overhead due to the library function call, which might be noticeable in performance-critical applications.
* **Readability and Maintainability**: While the native approach is often more concise, the Lodash approach can provide a clear expression of intent, making it easier for others to understand the code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need alternative approaches, consider:

1. Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` instead of `_minBy()`.
2. Implementing your own custom function to find the minimum value in an array.
3. Utilizing other JavaScript libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality to Lodash.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and you should choose the one that best fits your specific use case, performance requirements, and coding style preferences.

Related benchmarks:

native min vs lodash _.minBy (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

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):