Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash uniq vs set (array result)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Set vs Array
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
Set
var l = [...new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7])]; return l;
Array
var l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7]; return _.uniq(l);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Set
Array
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):
I'll explain the benchmark and its various components in detail. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using the built-in `Set` object and using the `uniq()` function from the Lodash library to remove duplicate elements from an array. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Built-in Set Object**: This approach uses the built-in `Set` object in JavaScript, which is a collection of unique values. The test case creates a set from an array and then returns its contents. 2. **Lodash uniq() Function**: This approach uses the `uniq()` function from Lodash library, which removes duplicate elements from an array. **Pros and Cons** **Built-in Set Object** Pros: * Native to JavaScript, so no additional dependencies are required. * Simple to implement and understand. * Generally faster than other approaches since it's a built-in data structure. Cons: * Only works with arrays that contain only values that can be added to a set (e.g., numbers, strings). * Does not preserve the original array order. **Lodash uniq() Function** Pros: * Works with any type of array and preserves the original array order. * More flexible than using a set, as it can handle non-numeric and non-string values. Cons: * Requires an additional dependency (Lodash library) to be included in the test case. * May be slower due to the overhead of the Lodash library. **Library and Syntax** The `uniq()` function from Lodash is used in this benchmark. Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a set of useful functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object creation, and more. No special JavaScript features or syntax are required to run these benchmarks. **Other Alternatives** If you want to compare other approaches, here are some additional options: * Using `filter()` with an identity function: `var l = [...new Array(l.length).keys()].map(x => l[x]);` * Using a custom implementation of set-like data structure (e.g., using a hash table). * Using a library like FastSet or SetHash for faster and more efficient set operations. However, keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and may not be as widely supported or optimized as the built-in `Set` object.
Related benchmarks:
lodash uniq vs vanilla set - final
lodash uniq vs native uniq
Lodash uniq vs Set to unique array
lodash uniq vs set - 3
lodash uniq vs spread new Set() medium size
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?