Benchmark: _.map over object vs Object.values.map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};

for (let i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
  obj[i.toString()] = i;
}

Tests:

_.map
var result = _.map(obj, (x) => x * x);
Object.values.map
var result = Object.values(obj).map((x) => x * x);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.map
Object.values.map

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches to iterate over an object:

1. Using `_.map` from Lodash (a JavaScript library for functional programming utilities).
2. Using the `Object.values()` method in combination with the `map()` method.

**Lodash `_` namespace**

The `_` namespace is a common convention in Node.js and other JavaScript environments to access functions from the Lodash library. It's similar to how you might import a module using a relative path, like `const _ = require('lodash');`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **_.map(obj, (x) => x * x)**: This uses the `_` namespace to access the `map()` function from Lodash. The callback function takes each value `x` and returns its square (`x * x`). The result is stored in the `result` variable.
2. **Object.values(obj).map((x) => x * x)**: This uses the built-in `Object.values()` method to get an array of object values, which are then passed to the `map()` method. Each value is processed by squaring it (`x * x`). The result is also stored in the `result` variable.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **_.map(obj, (x) => x * x)**:
	* Pros: Lodash provides a lightweight and efficient way to perform functional programming operations.
	* Cons: The benchmark may be skewed by the presence of the `_` namespace, which might not be present in all environments.
2. **Object.values(obj).map((x) => x * x)**:
	* Pros: This approach is more straightforward and doesn't rely on an external library.
	* Cons: It requires accessing the `Object.values()` method, which may incur additional overhead due to its implementation.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Type checking**: The Lodash implementation uses a more relaxed type system, which might lead to slower performance in some cases. The built-in `map()` method, on the other hand, performs stricter type checking.
2. **Optimization**: The built-in `Object.values()` method is optimized for performance and may use caching or other internal optimizations that aren't present in the Lodash implementation.

**Device Platform and Browser**

The benchmark was run on a Windows Desktop with Chrome 88 browser, which might not be representative of all possible environments. The results should be interpreted with caution when considering cross-platform compatibility.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches or libraries for functional programming in JavaScript, some alternatives include:

* Vanilla JavaScript (e.g., using `forEach()`, `reduce()`, and other methods)
* Other popular libraries like Ramda, Underscore.js, or ES7+ syntax features (e.g., `for...of` loops, arrow functions)

Related benchmarks:

_.map over object vs Object.values.map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.map vs Object.values.map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.map

Object.values.map

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):