Benchmark: lodash map vs js map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

const j = [1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 35, 49, 68, 74, 86, 93, 110, 121, 135, 141, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168]


function mapper(el) {
   return el + 10
}

function lodashMap () {
  arr = _.map(j, mapper)
  console.log(arr)
}

function jsMap () {
  arr = j.map(mapper)
  console.log(arr)
}

function reducer (sum, el){
	return sum + el
}

function lodashReduce () {
  sum = _.reduce(j, reducer, 0)
  console.log(sum)
}

function jsReduce () {
  sum = j.reduce(reducer, 0)
  console.log(sum)
}

Tests:

JS map
jsMap()
lodash map
lodashMap()
js reduce
jsReduce()
lodash reduce
lodashReduce()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

js reduce

233K/s

lodash reduce

227K/s

JS map

144K/s

lodash map

94K/s

Fastest: js reduce (2.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ js reduce: 233,010 ops/sec
• lodash reduce: 227,324 ops/sec
• JS map: 143,604 ops/sec
• lodash map: 94,321 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS map
lodash map
js reduce
lodash reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/137.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

js reduce

179K/s

lodash reduce

170K/s

JS map

144K/s

lodash map

44K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ js reduce	178,646 Ops/sec
lodash reduce	170,409 Ops/sec
JS map	143,604 Ops/sec
lodash map	43,869 Ops/sec

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 this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test measures the performance difference between two approaches: using Lodash's `map()` and `reduce()` functions, versus implementing these functions from scratch (using only built-in JavaScript methods).

**Approaches Compared**

There are four individual test cases:

1. **`jsMap()`**: This function uses the built-in `Array.prototype.map()` method to create a new array with the mapped values.
2. **`lodashMap()`**: This function uses Lodash's `map()` function to achieve the same result as `jsMap()`.
3. **`jsReduce()`**: This function uses the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to calculate the sum of the array elements.
4. **`lodashReduce()`**: This function uses Lodash's `reduce()` function to achieve the same result as `jsReduce()`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Built-in methods (`jsMap()` and `jsReduce()`)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, well-documented, and optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., legacy code or specific requirements).
* **Lodash's `map()` and `reduce()` functions (`lodashMap()` and `lodashReduce()`)**:
	+ Pros: Convenient, readable, and often faster than implementing from scratch due to Lodash's optimization.
	+ Cons: Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which may not be desirable for small projects or those with strict dependencies.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions, including `map()` and `reduce()`. Using Lodash can simplify code and improve performance.
* **Special JS Features/Syntax**: The benchmark does not mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, some notable mentions include:
	+ `arrow functions` (e.g., `mapper(el) => el + 10`), which are a concise way to define small functions.
	+ `template literals` (e.g., `const j = [1, 4, 9, ...]`, where the string is expanded into an array), which can improve code readability.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use built-in methods or Lodash's `map()` and `reduce()` functions, you can implement these functions from scratch using standard JavaScript loops:

```javascript
// jsMap()
function mapper(el) {
  let result = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < el.length; i++) {
    result.push(el[i] + 10);
  }
  return result;
}

// jsReduce()
function reducer(sum, el) {
  return sum + el;
}
```

Keep in mind that implementing these functions from scratch can be less readable and may not be as efficient as using built-in methods or Lodash's optimized implementations.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark!

lodash map vs js map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `JS map vs lodash map vs js reduce vs lodash reduce`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JS map

lodash map

js reduce

lodash reduce

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

lodash map vs js map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS map vs lodash map vs js reduce vs lodash reduce

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JS map

lodash map

js reduce

lodash reduce

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `JS map vs lodash map vs js reduce vs lodash reduce`