Benchmark: lodash groupBy vs Array.reduce 100k corrected

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max2 = 100000;

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { data.push({ id: i }); }

Tests:

Lodash
_.groupBy(data, ({ id }) => id)
Native
data.reduce((acc, item) => { acc[item.id] = [...(acc[item.id] || []), item]; 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 llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for grouping data: Lodash's `groupBy` function and JavaScript's native `Array.reduce` method. The test case uses a large dataset of 100,000 objects with an "id" property.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash's `groupBy` function**: This is a external library that provides a convenient way to group data by a common attribute (in this case, the `id` property). The implementation is provided by Lodash and is available for download from a CDN.
2. **JavaScript's native `Array.reduce` method**: This is a built-in method in JavaScript that allows you to iterate over an array and apply a reduction function to each element.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `groupBy` function:**

Pros:

* Convenient and easy to use
* Provides a high-level abstraction for grouping data
* Can be more readable and maintainable than implementing the grouping logic yourself

Cons:

* Requires an additional library to be included in the project (Lodash)
* May have overhead due to the inclusion of the library
* May not optimize as well as native code for specific use cases

**JavaScript's native `Array.reduce` method:**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance and has low overhead
* Can be implemented in a single line of code, making it easy to understand and maintain
* Allows for fine-grained control over the grouping logic

Cons:

* Requires more expertise and knowledge of JavaScript internals to implement correctly
* Can be more verbose than using Lodash's `groupBy` function
* May require additional effort to handle edge cases and errors

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including the `groupBy` function. The library includes many other useful functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string formatting, and object manipulation.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax: None mentioned**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The implementation focuses on demonstrating the performance difference between two standard approaches to grouping data.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for grouping data include:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach` with a callback function
* Using `Array.prototype.map` and `Array.prototype.reduce`
* Using a third-party library such as Ramda or Liskel

It's worth noting that the choice of implementation depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project. If you need a simple, high-performance solution for grouping data, native `Array.reduce` may be a good choice. However, if you prioritize convenience, readability, and maintainability, Lodash's `groupBy` function may be a better fit.

Related benchmarks:

lodash groupBy vs Array.reduce 100k corrected (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 llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):