Benchmark: lodash xor alternatives (copy)

Script Preparation code:

function dec2hex (dec) {
  return dec < 10
    ? '0' + String(dec)
    : dec.toString(16)
}

function generateId (len) {
  var arr = new Uint8Array((len || 40) / 2)
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(arr)
  return Array.from(arr, dec2hex).join('')
}

var a = []
var b = []
for( let i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
  a[i] = generateId(16)
  b[i] = generateId(16)
}

Tests:

current xor implementation
const res = _.xor(a,b)
alternative with Sets
function xor(arr1, arr2) { const set1 = new Set(arr1); const set2 = new Set(arr2); const unique1 = arr1.filter((value) => !set2.has(value)); const unique2 = arr2.filter((value) => !set1.has(value)); return Array.from(new Set(unique1.concat(unique2))); } const res = xor(a,b)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
current xor implementation
alternative with Sets

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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to implement the XOR (exclusive or) operation on two arrays, `a` and `b`. The first approach uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. The second approach implements the XOR operation from scratch using Sets.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash**: A JavaScript library that provides various utility functions, including `xor()`.
2. **Alternative with Sets**: An implementation of the XOR operation using Sets (data structures).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Lodash (`current xor implementation`)**

Pros:

* Well-maintained and widely used library
* Optimized for performance

Cons:

* External dependency, which may not be desirable in all scenarios
* May have overhead due to the library's existence

**Alternative with Sets**

Pros:

* No external dependencies
* Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., small arrays)

Cons:

* More complex implementation
* May have performance overhead due to Set operations

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also tests the performance of JavaScript in different browsers and devices, which is an important aspect of cross-platform compatibility.

**Libraries Used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a reference implementation. Lodash provides a `xor()` function that takes two arrays as input and returns their XOR result.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned explicitly, but the use of Set objects is specific to modern JavaScript implementations (ECMAScript 2015+).

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code generates two large arrays, `a` and `b`, each containing 1000 random IDs. These arrays are used as input for the XOR operation.

**Individual Test Cases**

Two test cases are defined:

1. **Current xor implementation**: Tests the performance of Lodash's `xor()` function.
2. **Alternative with Sets**: Tests the performance of an alternative implementation using Sets.

The latest benchmark results show that the Alternative with Sets approach performs better than the Current xor implementation, indicating that the Set-based approach is more efficient for this specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

lodash xor alternatives (copy) (version: 0)

.

Comparing performance of: current xor implementation vs alternative with Sets

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

current xor implementation

alternative with Sets

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):