Benchmark: foreach find vs lodash uniq

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

foreach find
const u = []; var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7]; a.forEach((v) => { var item = u.find(k => k === v) if (!item) { u.push(v); } });
Array
var l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7]; return _.uniq(l);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
foreach find
Array

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 MeasureThat.net and explore the JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to finding duplicate values in an array:

1. **Using `forEach` loop**: The first test case, "foreach find", uses a traditional `forEach` loop with a callback function to iterate over the array and check for duplicates.
2. **Using Lodash's `uniq` function**: The second test case, "Array", uses the popular JavaScript library Lodash to remove duplicate values from an array.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Native JavaScript implementation (using `forEach`)**
2. **Lodash implementation (`uniq` function)**

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Native JavaScript implementation (using `forEach`):**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient, since it's a built-in JavaScript function.
* No dependencies on external libraries.

Cons:

* Can be slower than Lodash's implementation due to the overhead of calling a separate function for each iteration.
* Requires manual handling of edge cases, such as null or undefined values.

**Lodash implementation (`uniq` function):**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient, since it's optimized for performance.
* Handles edge cases automatically, eliminating the need for manual error handling.
* No dependencies on external libraries (although Lodash is often used, its `uniq` function can be extracted).

Cons:

* Requires an additional dependency on Lodash.
* May have a slightly higher overhead due to the creation of a new array with unique values.

**Library and purpose**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of functions for common tasks, such as data manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `uniq` function, in particular, removes duplicate values from an array while preserving the original order.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative implementations to find duplicates in an array, you could consider:

1. **Using `Set` data structure**: This approach involves iterating over the array and adding each value to a `Set`. If a duplicate is found, it's ignored.
2. **Using `reduce()` function**: This approach involves using the `reduce()` function to iterate over the array and accumulate unique values in an accumulator.

Here's a simple example of how you could implement this:
```javascript
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7];
const uniqueValues = arr.reduce((unique, current) => {
  if (!unique.has(current)) {
    unique.add(current);
  }
  return unique;
}, new Set());
console.log(uniqueValues); // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
```
Keep in mind that this implementation has a higher overhead due to the use of a `Set`, but it's still an efficient solution.

The MeasureThat.net benchmark allows you to compare these different approaches and choose the one that best fits your needs.

Related benchmarks:

foreach find vs lodash uniq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: foreach find vs Array

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

foreach find

Array

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):