Benchmark: lodash test - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/2.4.1/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function shuffle(a) {
    var j, x, i;
    for (i = a.length; i; i--) {
        j = Math.floor(Math.random() * i);
        x = a[i - 1];
        a[i - 1] = a[j];
        a[j] = x;
    }
}
var all = [];
var ids = [];
var allLength = 1000;
var idsLength = 100;

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  all[i] = i;
}

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  ids[i] = i;
}
ids = ids.splice(allLength - idsLength)
shuffle(all);
shuffle(ids);

Tests:

map + find
var output = _.map(ids, function(element) { return _.find(all, element); }); console.log(output);
reduce + includes
var output = _.reduce(ids, function(acc, element) { if(_.includes(all, element)) { acc.push(element); } return acc; }, []); console.log(output);
filter + includes
var output = _.filter(ids, function(element) { return _.includes(all, element) }); console.log(output);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map + find
reduce + includes
filter + includes

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 what's being tested on this benchmark.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created using MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests the performance of three different methods for finding elements in an array: `map + find`, `reduce + includes`, and `filter + includes`. These methods are all part of the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Lodash Library**

Lodash (pronounced "lambda") is a JavaScript library that provides a collection of useful functions for tasks such as array manipulation, functional programming, and more. The library was created by Jeremy Miller in 2011 and has since become one of the most widely used libraries in the JavaScript ecosystem.

The three methods being tested are:

* `map + find`: This method uses the `map` function to create a new array with the results of applying a given function to each element in the original array, and then uses the `find` function to search for a specific element in the resulting array.
* `reduce + includes`: This method uses the `reduce` function to iterate over an array and accumulate values in a cumulative array, and then uses the `includes` function to check if a specific element is present in the accumulated array.
* `filter + includes`: This method uses the `filter` function to create a new array with elements that pass a given test, and then uses the `includes` function to search for a specific element in the resulting array.

**Approaches Compared**

The benchmark compares three different approaches:

1. **Lodash**: Using the Lodash library's built-in functions for each of the three methods.
2. **Native JavaScript**: Implementing the three methods using only native JavaScript features (no external libraries).
3. **Native JavaScript + Optimizations**: Implementing the three methods using native JavaScript features, but with optimizations such as caching and memoization to improve performance.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, well-tested, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: External dependency, may not be optimal for all use cases.
* **Native JavaScript**:
	+ Pros: No external dependencies, can be highly optimized.
	+ Cons: Requires more manual implementation effort, may not be as efficient as Lodash.
* **Native JavaScript + Optimizations**:
	+ Pros: Combines the benefits of native JavaScript and optimizations.
	+ Cons: More complex to implement, requires manual optimization efforts.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

* Performance requirements: If speed is critical, native JavaScript with optimizations may be the best choice. However, if ease of implementation and maintainability are more important, Lodash may be a better option.
* Development time: Native JavaScript implementations can take longer to develop, but provide full control over the code.
* Library dependencies: Using an external library like Lodash can simplify development, but may introduce additional dependencies.

In this benchmark, MeasureThat.net provides a convenient way to compare different approaches and identify performance differences. The test results indicate that using native JavaScript with optimizations can outperform Lodash for these specific methods.

Related benchmarks:

lodash test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map + find vs reduce + includes vs filter + includes

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map + find

reduce + includes

filter + includes

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):