Benchmark: Math.max vs _.max

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:


var arr = Array.from({length: 100}, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 100));

Tests:

Lodash.max
_.max(arr);
Math.max
Math.max(arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash.max
Math.max

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform for comparing the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks in various browsers and environments. The benchmark we're examining today compares the performance of two approaches to find the maximum value in an array: `Math.max` (a built-in JavaScript function) versus `_.max` from the popular library Lodash.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON contains three essential pieces of information:

1. **Name and Description**: The benchmark name is "Math.max vs _.max", and there's no description provided.
2. **Script Preparation Code**: This code generates an array `arr` with 100 random integers, which will be used as input for the benchmark.
3. **Html Preparation Code**: This code includes a reference to the Lodash library (version 4.17.5), which provides the `_max` function.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared in this benchmark are:

1. `Math.max`: A built-in JavaScript function that returns the maximum value of an array or other iterable.
2. `_.max` from Lodash: A utility function that finds the maximum value in an array, provided by the popular library Lodash.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Math.max**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and built-in, reducing overhead.
		- Fast and efficient.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work as expected with certain data types or edge cases.
		- Can be slower for large arrays due to the need to iterate over all elements.
* **_.max` from Lodash**:
	+ Pros:
		- Highly optimized and efficient, thanks to Lodash's expertise in performance optimization.
		- Handles edge cases and provides a robust implementation.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds overhead due to the library dependency.
		- May be slower than `Math.max` for very large arrays or specific use cases.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like data manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_max` function is one of its many useful utilities. In this benchmark, Lodash's implementation of `_.max` is compared to the built-in `Math.max` function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both `Math.max` and `_.max` are standard functions that can be used directly.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need alternative approaches for finding the maximum value in an array, consider:

1. Using a more specialized library like Ramda or Lodash's `maxBy` function.
2. Implementing your own iterative solution using a loop.
3. Utilizing other optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code generates an array `arr` with 100 random integers:
```javascript
var arr = Array.from({length: 100}, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 100));
```
This code creates an array of 100 elements, each containing a random integer between 0 and 99.

Related benchmarks:

Math.max vs _.max (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash.max vs Math.max

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash.max

Math.max

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):