Benchmark: lodash chunk - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = [1,3,2,1,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]

Tests:

Lodash
_.chunk(data,2);
Native
const chunk = (arr, size) => Array.from({ length: Math.ceil(arr.length / size) }, (v, i) => arr.slice(i * size, i * size + size) ); chunk(data,2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 144 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Lodash

13.8M/s

Native

11.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash	13,757,599 Ops/sec
Native	10,954,177 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance of two different approaches to chunking an array, which means splitting it into smaller sub-arrays of a specified size.

**Approach 1: Using Lodash (_.chunk)**

This approach uses the `chunk` function from the popular JavaScript library Lodash. The test case uses this function with the input array and a chunk size of 2. This will result in two sub-arrays, each containing half of the original data.

**Approach 2: Native implementation**

The second approach is a native implementation using plain JavaScript code. It defines an anonymous function `chunk` that takes an array and a chunk size as input. The function uses `Array.from` to create an array of sub-arrays, where each sub-array contains the specified number of elements from the original array.

**What options are compared?**

The two test cases compare the execution performance of:

1. Using Lodash's `chunk` function (approach 1)
2. A native JavaScript implementation using plain code (approach 2)

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Lodash (_.chunk)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, concise code, and well-maintained by the Lodash team.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency, which might add overhead for large projects or browsers without this library.
* **Native implementation**:
	+ Pros: No external dependencies required, potentially faster due to fewer overheads (e.g., no need to load a separate library).
	+ Cons: More verbose code, requires manual maintenance and updates.

**Other considerations:**

* The test case uses the `chunk` function from Lodash version 4.17.5. This might not be the latest version, but it's still relatively recent.
* The native implementation is quite concise and readable, considering its purpose.
* Both approaches have similar performance characteristics for small to medium-sized arrays.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other options, consider the following:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript library that provides a `chunk` function similar to Lodash's implementation.
2. **JavaScript built-in methods**: You can also use plain JavaScript code with methods like `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Array.from` to achieve array chunking, although it might be less efficient than the provided implementations.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of using Lodash's `chunk` function versus a native JavaScript implementation for array chunking. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but the native implementation is more concise and potentially faster due to fewer overheads.

lodash chunk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Native`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

lodash chunk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Native`