Benchmark: Lodash (omitBy & isUndefined) vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var sampleObject = {
	e1: 'hello world',
	e2: undefined,
}

Tests:

Lodash with _.omitBy & _.isUndefined
_.omitBy(sampleObject, _.isUndefined)
Native
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(sampleObject)) { if (typeof value === 'undefined') { delete sampleObject[key] } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash with _.omitBy & _.isUndefined
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash with _.omitBy & _.isUndefined	2484438.8 Ops/sec
Native	3395759.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. Using the Lodash library, specifically the `_.omitBy` function with the `_.isUndefined` predicate.
2. The native JavaScript implementation without any libraries.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

* Option 1: Lodash's `_.omitBy` function, which takes an object and a predicate function as arguments. It returns a new object with the values that do not match the predicate.
* Option 2: A native JavaScript implementation using a simple `for...of` loop to iterate over the object entries, and then deleting any property with a value of `undefined`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each option:

**Lodash's `_omitBy` function:**

Pros:

* Concise and expressive code
* Built-in support for predicate functions

Cons:

* Requires an additional library (Lodash)
* May incur overhead due to the library's existence

**Native JavaScript implementation:**

Pros:

* No additional library is required
* Can be optimized by the interpreter or compiler

Cons:

* More verbose and less expressive code
* Does not include built-in support for predicate functions

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library to provide the `_.omitBy` function. The purpose of using a library like Lodash is to make the code more concise and readable, while also providing a standardized way to perform common operations.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark that would require any advanced knowledge.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for implementing the `_.omitBy` function could include:

* Using a custom implementation with a simple loop and conditional statements
* Utilizing other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality (e.g., Ramda, Underscore.js)
* Leveraging built-in array methods, such as `filter()` or `map()`, to achieve the desired result

However, in this benchmark, Lodash's `_omitBy` function is used due to its concise and expressive nature, making it an ideal choice for performance comparison.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash (omitBy & isUndefined) vs native (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Lodash with _.omitBy & _.isUndefined vs Native

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash with _.omitBy & _.isUndefined

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):