Benchmark: lodash vs shuffle

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function shuffle(array) {
    const shuffledArray = [...array];
  for (let i = shuffledArray.length - 1; i > 0; i--) {
    const j = Math.floor(Math.random() * (i + 1));
    [shuffledArray[i], shuffledArray[j]] = [shuffledArray[j], shuffledArray[i]];
  }
  return shuffledArray;
}
var all = [];
var allLength = 10000;

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  all[i] = i;
}

Tests:

JS
shuffle(all);
Lodash
_.shuffle(all)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS
Lodash

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we're analyzing a benchmark that compares the performance of a custom JavaScript implementation (JS) with the `lodash` library's `shuffle` function.

**Tested Options**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **Custom JavaScript Implementation (JS)**: This option uses a simple iterative approach to shuffle an array. The code is:
```javascript
function shuffle(array) {
  const shuffledArray = [...array];
  for (let i = shuffledArray.length - 1; i > 0; i--) {
    const j = Math.floor(Math.random() * (i + 1));
    [shuffledArray[i], shuffledArray[j]] = [shuffledArray[j], shuffledArray[i]];
  }
  return shuffledArray;
}

var all = [];
var allLength = 10000;

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  all[i] = i;
}
```
2. **Lodash Library's `shuffle` Function**: This option uses the `lodash` library to shuffle an array. The code is:
```javascript
var _ = require('lodash');

var all = [];
var allLength = 10000;

// ...

_.shuffle(all);
```
**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Custom JavaScript Implementation (JS)**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, no dependencies on external libraries.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the lack of optimization and the need for a loop.
2. **Lodash Library's `shuffle` Function**:
	* Pros: Optimized for performance, uses a more efficient algorithm.
	* Cons: Requires an external library dependency.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures the execution speed of the shuffle function on an array of 10,000 elements.
* The test is run on a Chrome 102 browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device.

**Library and Its Purpose**

`lodash` is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers. In this case, the `_.shuffle` function is used to shuffle an array in a more efficient and concise way than the custom implementation.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to shuffling an array could include:

* Using the Fisher-Yates shuffle algorithm, which is a widely-used and optimized algorithm for generating a random permutation of an array.
* Using a library like `fast-shuffle` or `shuffle-array`, which provide optimized implementations of the shuffle function.
* Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a tree, to shuffle the elements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs shuffle (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS vs Lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS

Lodash

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):