Benchmark: uniqBy performance ttt

HTML Preparation code:

<script>https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.core.js</script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3}, {a: 4}, {a: 5}, {a: 6}, {a: 7}, {a: 8}, {a: 1}];

Tests:

lodash
_.uniqBy(data, a => a.a + 'aaa');
javascript
const sortBy = (key) => { return (a, b) => (a[key] > b[key]) ? 1 : (b[key] > a[key] ? -1 : 0); }; const uniqBy = (arr, a) => { arr.sort(sortBy(a)); const arr1 = []; arr1.push(arr[0]); for (let index = 1; index < arr.length; index++) { if (arr[index-1] && arr[index -1].a !== arr[index].a) { arr1.push(arr[index]); } } return arr1; } uniqBy(data, 'a')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
javascript

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 benchmark analysis.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case that compares the performance of two approaches: using Lodash (`_.uniqBy`) and implementing it from scratch in JavaScript (`uniqBy` function). The test data consists of an array of objects with a unique identifier (`a`) used as the key for uniqueness.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash' `_.uniqBy`**: A utility function from the Lodash library that removes duplicates based on a given key, while preserving order.
2. **Custom JavaScript implementation of `uniqBy`**: A self-implemented function that uses sorting to remove duplicates.

**Pros and Cons**

### Lodash' `_.uniqBy`

Pros:

* **Convenience**: Lodash provides a well-tested and widely used implementation of unique-by-attribute functionality, making it easy to reuse.
* **Efficient**: Optimized for performance and optimized for common use cases.

Cons:

* **Additional dependency**: Requires including the Lodash library in the test environment, which may add overhead or dependencies not present in a pure JavaScript context.
* **Loss of control**: The implementation details are hidden from view, making it harder to understand the underlying logic and potentially limiting customization.

### Custom JavaScript implementation

Pros:

* **Control and understanding**: By implementing the algorithm manually, developers can gain a deeper understanding of the code's behavior and make targeted optimizations.
* **No dependencies**: No external libraries or dependencies need to be included, reducing overhead and complexity.

Cons:

* **More complex**: The custom implementation requires manual handling of sorting, duplicates, and edge cases, which can add complexity.
* **Potential performance issues**: Without optimization, the custom implementation may not perform as efficiently as Lodash' optimized version.

**Library and its purpose**

The `lodash` library is a popular collection of utility functions for JavaScript, providing a wide range of algorithms for common tasks. In this case, `_uniqBy` is used to remove duplicates from an array based on a specific key, while preserving the original order.

**Special JS feature or syntax (none mentioned)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in these benchmark cases.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to compare other approaches for removing duplicates by attribute, some alternatives might include:

* Using `Set` and filtering based on the unique attribute
* Utilizing a map-based approach with a single pass through the data
* Implementing a custom sorting algorithm with a more efficient comparison function

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would require trade-offs between performance, memory usage, and readability.

I hope this analysis provides valuable insights into the benchmark test cases!

Related benchmarks:

uniqBy performance ttt (version: 0)

lodash vs javascript

Comparing performance of: lodash vs javascript

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

javascript

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):