Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash Filter vs Native Filter with Empty Check
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash Filter vs Native Filter
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.foo = [{}, {a:1}, {b:1}];
Tests:
Lodash Filter
_.filter(foo, (item) => { return !_.isEmpty(item); });
Native Filter
foo.filter((item) => { return Object.keys(item).length !== 0; });
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Lodash Filter
Native Filter
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to filter an array: 1. **Lodash Filter**: The `_.filter` function from the Lodash library is used, which takes an array (`foo`) as input and a callback function that returns a boolean value indicating whether each element should be included in the filtered array. In this case, the callback function checks if the item is not empty using the `_isEmpty` function. 2. **Native Filter**: The `filter` method of the native JavaScript Array prototype is used, which also takes an array as input and a callback function that returns a boolean value indicating whether each element should be included in the filtered array. In this case, the callback function checks if the item has at least one key using `Object.keys(item).length !== 0`. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * Lodash Filter (using the `_filter` method from the Lodash library) * Native Filter (using the `filter` method of the native JavaScript Array prototype) **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach: **Lodash Filter** Pros: * Provides a convenient and readable way to filter arrays using a callback function. * Supports various filtering options, such as `.map`, `.filter`, and `.reduce`. * Often used in large-scale JavaScript applications due to its popularity and widespread support. Cons: * Adds an extra layer of complexity due to the need to include the Lodash library. * May have performance overhead compared to native implementations. **Native Filter** Pros: * Has lower performance overhead since it doesn't require including an additional library. * Can be optimized for specific use cases, such as filtering large arrays. Cons: * Requires a good understanding of the `filter` method's behavior and callback function syntax. * May not be as convenient or readable as using Lodash. **Library Used** The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. The `_isEmpty` function from Lodash is called to check if an object is empty, which is then used in the filter callback function. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript array methods and callbacks. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative filtering libraries, some popular options include: * Ramda: A functional programming library that provides a variety of filtering functions. * Underscore.js: Another popular utility library that includes filtering functionality. * Array.prototype.filter(): As mentioned earlier, the native `filter` method can be used for simple filtering. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and usage patterns compared to Lodash or native implementations.
Related benchmarks:
lodash filter vs array.filter
Array.prototype.filter vs Lodash.without
Lodash.js vs Native - empty
Array.prototype.filter vs Lodash without 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?