Benchmark: lodash benchmark

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

native
arr2.forEach(function (element, index) { element = element*2; });
lodash
_.forEach(arr2, function (element, index) { element = element*2; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
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.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This approach uses the native `forEach` loop method built into JavaScript.
2. **Lodash library**: This approach uses the `_forEach` function from the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Options compared**

Both approaches are being tested with different inputs:

* `max1`: an array of 100,000 elements
* `max2`: an array of 10,000,000 elements (10 million)
* `max3`: an array of 100,000,000 elements (100 million)

The tests are designed to measure the execution speed of both approaches for different input sizes.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Native JavaScript:**

Pros:

* No additional library dependencies required
* Built-in performance

Cons:

* Can be slower than other implementations, especially for large inputs
* May not be optimized for performance

**Lodash library:**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance by the maintainers of Lodash
* Wide adoption and usage in the JavaScript community

Cons:

* Requires an additional library dependency
* May introduce overhead due to function call and object lookup

**Library: Lodash**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including `forEach`. The `_forEach` function is used in this benchmark to test the performance of the Lodash implementation.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark uses the ES6 arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`\telement = element*2;\r\n;`) which are a part of the modern JavaScript language specification. They provide concise and readable syntax for defining small, anonymous functions and string interpolations, respectively.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other benchmarking approaches or libraries, here are some alternatives:

* **V8 Benchmark**: A set of benchmark tests developed by the V8 JavaScript engine team to test the performance of JavaScript implementations.
* **SpiderMonkey Benchmark**: A set of benchmark tests developed by Mozilla's SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine to test the performance of JavaScript implementations.
* **js-benchmark**: A simple benchmarking library for JavaScript that allows you to write and run custom benchmarks.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Related benchmarks:

lodash benchmark (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

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):