Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Join: Lodash vs Native
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs native
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
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:
var data = Array(1000000).fill('a');
Tests:
lodash
_.join(data, ',')
native
data.join(',')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
native
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 dive into the world of microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes a specific JavaScript operation to be performed: joining an array of strings using a comma separator. The script preparation code creates a large array `data` filled with 1 million 'a' characters, which will be used for the join operation. **Html Preparation Code** The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.17.5 from a CDN. This library is used to implement the join operation in the benchmark definition. **Test Cases and Libraries Used** There are two test cases: 1. **Lodash**: The first test case uses the `_.join()` function from the Lodash library to perform the join operation. 2. **Native**: The second test case uses the native JavaScript method `Array.join()` without any additional libraries or helpers. **Options Compared and Their Pros/Cons** The main difference between these two approaches is how they handle string concatenation: 1. **Lodash (`_.join()`)** * Pros: + More readable code with a clear purpose (joining strings). + Potential performance benefits due to Lodash's optimization techniques. + Easier error handling and debugging, as the library handles edge cases. * Cons: + Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which might not be necessary for simple join operations. + Potentially slower execution time due to the overhead of loading and executing the Lodash library. 2. **Native (`Array.join()`)** * Pros: + Faster execution time, as it avoids the overhead of loading an external library. + More efficient use of memory resources, as it doesn't require the additional storage for the Lodash library. * Cons: + Less readable code, as the purpose of using `Array.join()` is not immediately clear. + May lead to more complex error handling and debugging scenarios. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to a simple string join operation. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for implementing string joins could include: * Using the `String.prototype.join()` method directly on the array, like so: `data.join(',')` * Utilizing other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized string joining functionality (e.g., Ramda or Immutable.js) * Implementing a custom join function using `Array.prototype.forEach()` and concatenation * Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `Spread Operator` (`...`) for more concise code However, in this specific benchmark, the focus is on comparing the performance of Lodash's join functionality with native implementation.
Related benchmarks:
lodash join vs native join
Length vs Lodash Size 100k
Spread Operator vs Lodash [2]
Array From vs lodash clone
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?