Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test map
(version: 0)
Test map
Comparing performance of:
1 vs 2
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
arrays = new Array(1000000).fill(1).map((_,index) => index);
Tests:
1
const test = arrays.map(item =>item);
2
const test = _.map(arrays, (item) => item);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
1
2
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the test case. It contains: * `Name`: A descriptive name for the benchmark. * `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark. * `Script Preparation Code`: The code used to prepare the data for the test. In this case, it's creating an array of 1 million elements using JavaScript's `Array` constructor and the `map()` method. * `Html Preparation Code`: The HTML code that sets up the environment for the test. It includes a link to a version of Lodash (a popular utility library) via a CDN. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **Test Case 1**: Uses JavaScript's built-in `map()` method to transform an array. 2. **Test Case 2**: Uses the `map()` function from the Lodash library, which provides additional features and optimizations for working with arrays. **Comparison of Map Functionality** The two test cases compare the performance of using JavaScript's built-in `map()` method versus the `map()` function from Lodash. This comparison highlights differences in: * **Optimization**: Lodash's implementation is optimized for performance, which may result in better execution times. * **Features**: Lodash provides additional features like caching, memoization, and support for other data structures (like sets or maps), which might not be available or efficient in JavaScript's built-in `map()` method. * **Library Overhead**: Using a library like Lodash introduces an overhead due to its dependencies and initialization processes. **Pros and Cons** **JavaScript Built-in `map()` Method:** Pros: * Lightweight and easy to use * No additional dependencies or overhead Cons: * May not be optimized for performance, leading to slower execution times **Lodash's `map()` Function:** Pros: * Optimized for performance * Provides additional features and utilities for working with arrays Cons: * Introduces an additional dependency (the Lodash library) and potential overhead * May require more code to achieve the same result as JavaScript's built-in `map()` **Library Considerations** In this case, the use of Lodash is likely intended to provide a performance boost or simplify the implementation. However, using a third-party library can also introduce additional complexity and dependencies. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. The usage of `map()` and its variations is standard JavaScript functionality. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to compare the performance of map function could include: * Using a different JavaScript library, like Ramda or Lo-Dash * Implementing a custom array mapping algorithm from scratch * Comparing the performance of different language implementations, like TypeScript or CoffeeScript Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data
array.map vs _.map
Test Lodash KarthikMM
native map vs lodash map on large array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?