Benchmark: lodash uniq vs array from set

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

Set
var l = Array.from(new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7])); return l;
Array
var l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7]; return _.uniq(l);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set
Array

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 provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. Creating an array from a set (using `Array.from(new Set(...))`)
2. Using the Lodash library's `uniq` function to remove duplicates from an array (`_.uniq(l)`)

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two options for creating an array with unique elements.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Creating an array from a set (Array.from(new Set(...)))**
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient use of memory, as sets only store unique values.
		+ Fast lookup times, making it suitable for large datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead due to the need to convert the set to an array.
2. **Using Lodash's `uniq` function**
	* Pros:
		+ Familiar and widely-used library, reducing learning curve for developers.
		+ Can handle complex data structures and edge cases out of the box.
	* Cons:
		+ May have slower performance compared to creating an array from a set.
		+ Additional dependency on the Lodash library.

**Library usage:**

The `uniq` function is provided by the Lodash library, which is loaded via a script tag in the benchmark's HTML preparation code (`<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>`).

**JavaScript features or syntax:**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is standard in modern browsers.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a relatively small input dataset (12 unique elements) to minimize overhead and focus on performance differences.
* The test runs in a headless browser environment, which may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where the code will be executed in a web page context.
* Other alternatives to consider for creating an array with unique elements include using `Array.prototype.filter()` or implementing a custom solution using `reduce()`, but these are not part of this benchmark.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, some options include:

1. Using `Set` directly in an array context (`[...new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7])]`)
2. Implementing a custom solution using `reduce()` or `map()`
3. Using a library like `lodash` for other array manipulation tasks (e.g., sorting, mapping, reducing)

However, the benchmark focuses specifically on comparing these two approaches, so exploring alternative solutions would require separate testing and evaluation.

Related benchmarks:

lodash uniq vs array from set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set vs Array

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set

Array

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):