Benchmark: lodash compact vs native filter

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var ops = [null, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, null, null, null, 3, 4,5, 6, 34,341,2,2,2,1,212,21212,34,1,3112, null, '', '', 'asdf'];

Tests:

lodash compact
_.compact(ops)
Native filter
ops.filter(op => !!op)
Native filter (Boolean)
ops.filter(op => Boolean(op))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash compact
Native filter
Native filter (Boolean)

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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to remove null and empty values from an array:

1. `_.compact(ops)` - This is the Lodash `compact` function, which removes all falsey values from an array.
2. `ops.filter(op => !!op)` - This is a native JavaScript filter function that uses the double-nota operator (`!!`) to check if a value is truthy (i.e., not null or undefined).
3. `ops.filter(op => Boolean(op))` - This is another native JavaScript filter function that casts its input to a boolean value, which will remove null and undefined values.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* **Lodash `compact`**: A library-based approach that uses a specialized function for filtering out falsey values.
* **Native JavaScript `filter` with `!!op`**: An approach that leverages the double-nota operator to check for truthiness in the filter callback.
* **Native JavaScript `filter` with `Boolean(op)`**: Another approach that casts its input to a boolean value.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **Lodash `compact`**:
	* Pros: Optimized for performance, concise code, and well-maintained by the Lodash community.
	* Cons: Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library) and might be overkill for simple use cases.
2. **Native JavaScript `filter` with `!!op`**:
	* Pros: No dependencies required, widely supported by modern browsers, and easy to implement.
	* Cons: Requires the double-nota operator, which can be confusing or less readable for some developers.
3. **Native JavaScript `filter` with `Boolean(op)`**:
	* Pros: Similar to the previous approach but uses a more traditional boolean casting method.
	* Cons: Still requires the filter function and explicit conversion to boolean.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers. The `compact` function is one of its most useful ones.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the double-nota operator (`!!`) in two places, which might be unfamiliar to some developers. This operator is not part of vanilla JavaScript but has become widely accepted and used in modern web development.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash `compact` or want to explore native JavaScript solutions, consider the following options:

* Use a different library that provides similar functionality, such as Underscore.js.
* Implement your own filter function using vanilla JavaScript, leveraging techniques like `Array.prototype.filter()` and conditional statements.

Overall, the benchmark helps developers understand the performance trade-offs between using Lodash's optimized functions versus implementing native JavaScript solutions with double-nota operators or traditional boolean casting.

Related benchmarks:

lodash compact vs native filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash compact vs Native filter vs Native filter (Boolean)

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash compact

Native filter

Native filter (Boolean)

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):