Benchmark: Lodash vs Native reduce on object Copy

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) => { acc.push(val.map(d => ({ value: val }))); return acc; }, [])
Native
Object.values(obj).reduce((acc, val) => { acc.push(val.map(d => ({ 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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares the performance of Lodash's `_.reduce()` function against JavaScript's native `reduce()` method when processing an object.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark evaluates how efficiently each approach transforms a nested object structure.  Both tests aim to create a new array from the original object, with each element in the resulting array containing transformed data from the nested objects within the original.

* **Lodash Approach:** Uses `_.reduce()` to iterate over the values of the input object and apply a transformation function to each value.
* **Native Approach:** Employs `Object.values()` to retrieve the values of the input object, followed by applying the native `reduce()` method for iteration and transformation.

**Options Compared (Pros/Cons):**

* **Lodash (`_.reduce`)**:
    * **Pro:** Well-established, often optimized for performance in common tasks. Offers additional features and convenience compared to native functions.
    * **Con:** Introduces a dependency on the Lodash library, potentially adding unnecessary size and overhead if other Lodash functionalities aren't used.

* **Native `reduce()`**: 
    * **Pro:** No external library dependency, keeping your code leaner and potentially faster in some cases.
    * **Con:**  Might require more explicit code for common tasks compared to Lodash's more concise syntax. The performance might not always be as optimized as Lodash.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Benchmark Results**: In this specific case, the native `reduce()` method outperformed Lodash's `_.reduce()` by a significant margin. However, benchmark results can vary depending on factors like hardware, browser engine, and the specific code being executed.

* **Readability:**  While Lodash's syntax might appear more concise, it can sometimes be less readable for developers unfamiliar with Lodash's conventions. 
* **Ecosystem**: Lodash is a part of a vast JavaScript ecosystem with extensive documentation, community support, and numerous use cases.

**Alternatives:**

* **Functional Programming Libraries:** Consider libraries like Ramda or Immutable.js if you favor functional programming paradigms and need advanced array manipulation capabilities.
* **Custom Implementation:** For very specific use cases, it might be worthwhile to write a highly optimized custom function tailored to your exact requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Native reduce on object Copy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):