Benchmark: Native ranged random vs Lodash ranged random - long range

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var START = 0;
var END = 10000000;

function nativeRandom(startInc, endExc) {
  return startInc + Math.floor(Math.random() * (endExc - startInc))
}

function lodashRandom(startInc, endExc) {
  return _.random(startInc, endExc - 1)
}

Tests:

Native
nativeRandom(START, END);
Lodash
lodashRandom(START, END);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares two approaches to generate random numbers within a specified range: native (using JavaScript's built-in `Math.random()` function) and Lodash (using the popular utility library Lodash).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two functions:

1. `nativeRandom(startInc, endExc)`: This function uses the `Math.random()` function to generate a random number between `startInc` and `endExc`. The function returns a value that increments by `startInc` from an initial value generated by `Math.random() * (endExc - startInc)`.
2. `lodashRandom(startInc, endExc)`: This function uses Lodash's `random()` function to generate a random number between `startInc` and `endExc-1`. The `-1` is likely used to ensure the upper bound is exclusive.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.17.21 from a CDN.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Native**: This test case runs the `nativeRandom(START, END)` function.
2. **Lodash**: This test case runs the `lodashRandom(START, END)` function.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches under different conditions:

* Native: Uses JavaScript's built-in `Math.random()` function to generate random numbers.
* Lodash: Uses Lodash's `random()` function to generate random numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Native:
Pros:

* Lightweight and easy to implement
* No additional library dependencies

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of creating a random number generator
* Limited range options (e.g., limited by `Math.random()`'s internal implementation)

Lodash:
Pros:

* Faster and more efficient than native implementations
* More flexible range options (e.g., allows for larger ranges or custom distributions)

Cons:

* Adds an external library dependency, which may impact performance
* May have a higher overhead due to the additional function call

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If speed is critical, Lodash might be a better choice. However, if lightweight and easy implementation are more important, native might be sufficient.
* Range options: If you need to generate random numbers within a large range or require custom distributions, Lodash's flexibility might be beneficial.

**Library**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and number generation. In this benchmark, Lodash's `random()` function is used to generate random numbers within a specified range.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only utilizes built-in functions like `Math.random()` and the Lodash library.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following options:

* Using a different random number generator, such as the Mersenne Twister or the Xorshift algorithm
* Implementing your own custom random number generator using a different algorithm
* Using a specialized library like NaCl (Native Application Compatibility) for secure random number generation

Related benchmarks:

Native ranged random vs Lodash ranged random - long range (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

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):