Benchmark: lodash array sizes

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) console.log(arr2.length)
Lodash
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) console.log(_.size(arr2))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

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 break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test case measures the performance of two approaches: native JavaScript and Lodash (a popular utility library for JavaScript).

1. **Native**: The "Native" approach uses only built-in JavaScript features, without relying on any external libraries.
2. **Lodash**: The "Lodash" approach uses the Lodash library to perform the same operation as the Native approach.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes three arrays:

* `arr1`: An empty array filled with values from 0 to `max1` (100,000).
* `arr2`: Another empty array filled with values from 0 to `max2` (10,000,000).
* `arr3`: A third empty array filled with values from 0 to `max3` (100,000,000).

The script preparation code is identical for both approaches.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the Lodash library, version 4.17.4, using a CDN link.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Native**: Uses built-in JavaScript features without any external libraries.
2. **Lodash**: Uses the Lodash library to perform the same operation as the Native approach.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **Native**:
	+ Pros: No external dependencies, potentially faster execution since no overhead from a library is introduced.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the complexity of JavaScript's built-in data structures and algorithms.
* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: Leverages optimized and tested algorithms in Lodash, which may result in better performance.
	+ Cons: Introduces an external dependency (the Lodash library), which might affect execution speed.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions for common tasks, such as:

* Array manipulation (e.g., `size`, `each`)
* String manipulation
* Object manipulation

In this benchmark, Lodash is used to measure the performance of the `_.size` function on an array.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. The focus is on comparing two approaches: native JavaScript and Lodash.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more alternatives, you could consider using other libraries like:

* Underscore.js (a companion library to Lodash)
* Moment.js (for date and time manipulation)
* MapReduce.js (for parallel processing)

Keep in mind that each alternative would introduce additional dependencies and potentially affect the benchmark's accuracy.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

lodash array sizes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

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):