Benchmark: lodash times vs for i loop

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.times(values.length, function(i) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; for (var i = 0; i < values.length; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

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!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of two approaches: using Lodash's `times` function and a native `for` loop.

**What is being tested?**

In this benchmark, we're testing the performance difference between using Lodash's `times` function and a traditional `for` loop to iterate over an array of objects. Specifically, we're measuring the time it takes to count the number of objects in each iteration that has a non-null value for property `a`.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Lodash's `times` function**: This is a utility function provided by the Lodash library, which allows you to execute a callback function a specified number of times.
2. **Native `for` loop**: This is a traditional loop construct used in JavaScript to iterate over an array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash's `times` function**:
	+ Pros: concise syntax, easy to read and maintain, avoids boilerplate code.
	+ Cons: relies on external library (Lodash), might introduce overhead due to function call and closure creation.
* **Native `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: no external dependencies, no additional function call or closure creation overhead.
	+ Cons: requires more boilerplate code, less readable for complex logic.

**Library**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library. The `times` function is a part of the Lodash utility belt, which provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to use alternative approaches, some options could be:

* Using other utility libraries like `underscore` or `ramda`.
* Implementing a custom loop using a recursive function or a generator.
* Using JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.forEach()` method (although this would require modifications to the benchmark definition).

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of objects (`values`) and includes the Lodash library via a CDN.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash's `times` function**: This test case uses the `times` function from Lodash to iterate over the `values` array and count the number of objects with non-null value for property `a`.
2. **Native `for` loop**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the `values` array and count the number of objects with non-null value for property `a`.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows that the native `for` loop performs better than Lodash's `times` function on this specific test case, with an execution rate of 3851207.75 executions per second compared to 3561954.0 executions per second.

Please note that these results are specific to this particular benchmark definition and may not be representative of performance differences in other scenarios or libraries.

Related benchmarks:

lodash times vs for i loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

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):