Benchmark: Lodash vs Native reduce on object

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 10; i < len; i++) {
  var arr = []
  obj['key' + i] = arr
  for (var n = 0, len = 10; n < len; n++) {
    arr.push({ ['key' + n]: n });
  }
}

Tests:

Lodash
_.reduce(obj, (acc, val, key) => { acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val })); return acc; }, {})
Native
Object.entries(obj).reduce((acc, [key, val]) => { acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val })); return acc; }, {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using Lodash and native JavaScript to reduce an object. The benchmark creates an object with 10 properties, each containing an array of objects. The task is to transform this data structure by mapping over the arrays and creating a new object with key-value pairs.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of utility functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more.
2. **Native JavaScript**: This option uses native JavaScript methods to achieve the same result without relying on an external library.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash:**

Pros:

* Simplifies complex transformations by providing pre-built utility functions
* Can be more concise and readable code

Cons:

* Adds an additional library dependency, which may impact performance due to overhead
* May not be suitable for small projects or those with strict size constraints

Native JavaScript:

Pros:

* No additional library dependencies, resulting in smaller bundle sizes
* Direct access to low-level JavaScript features, potentially leading to better performance

Cons:

* Requires more boilerplate code and manual effort to achieve the same result as Lodash
* May be less readable for complex transformations without prior knowledge of native JavaScript methods

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used in its `reduce` function to transform the object. The specific implementation is:
```javascript
_.reduce(obj, (acc, val, key) => {
  acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val }));
  return acc;
}, {});
```
This code uses Lodash's `reduce` function to iterate over the object's properties and transform the data.

**Special JavaScript Feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches (Lodash vs native JavaScript) without introducing any advanced features or nuances.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in alternative libraries or approaches for similar tasks, some options include:

* Other utility libraries like Underscore.js, Ramda, or Moment.js
* Custom implementation using only native JavaScript methods
* Using other functional programming languages like Python or R

For this specific task, a custom implementation using native JavaScript methods would likely be comparable to the Lodash approach in terms of performance.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Native reduce on object (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):