Benchmark: Lodash uniqBy vs Map destructuring

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var myArr = Array.from({
    length: 16000
}, () => ({ someData: 123, value: Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) }));

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash uniqBy
myCopy = _.uniqBy(myArr, 'value').map(({ value }) => value);
new Map() Destructuring
myCopy = [...new Map(myArr.map((el) => [el.value, el])).values()];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash uniqBy
new Map() Destructuring

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lodash uniqBy

5K/s

new Map() Destructuring

2K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash uniqBy	5,108 Ops/sec
new Map() Destructuring	2,210 Ops/sec

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 explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**What's being tested:**

Two individual test cases are being compared:

1. Lodash `uniqBy` function
2. The destructuring of a new Map using the spread operator (`[...new Map()]`)

The test case uses an array `myArr` with 16,000 elements, each containing two properties: `someData` and `value`. The purpose of this setup is to create a scenario where both functions are called repeatedly, allowing for a fair comparison.

**Options compared:**

* Lodash `uniqBy`
	+ **Pros:** Well-established and widely-used library, provides a simple way to remove duplicates based on a specific property.
	+ **Cons:** May be slower than native JavaScript solutions due to its overhead.
* Destructuring of a new Map using the spread operator (`[...new Map()]`)
	+ **Pros:** Native JavaScript solution that avoids external library dependencies and has low overhead.
	+ **Cons:** Requires manual handling of object keys as map values, which can be error-prone.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript. `uniqBy` is one of its functions, designed to remove duplicate elements from an array based on the value of a specific property. In this benchmark, it's used to compare its performance with the native JavaScript solution using Map destructuring.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two different approaches.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The preparation code sets up an array `myArr` and initializes a variable `myCopy` to null, which will be used by both test cases. The HTML preparation code includes the Lodash library from a CDN.

**Individual test cases**

Each test case defines a specific benchmarking scenario:

1. "Lodash uniqBy": Uses the `uniqBy` function from Lodash to remove duplicates from `myArr` based on the `value` property, and then maps over the resulting array using destructuring.
2. "new Map() Destructuring": Creates a new Map from `myArr`, extracts the values, and then uses the spread operator to convert it into an array.

**Latest benchmark result**

The provided results show the execution count per second for each test case on a Chrome 111 browser running on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 system. The "Lodash uniqBy" test outperforms the native Map destructuring solution, but with a close margin.

**Other alternatives:**

Other alternatives to comparing performance in this benchmark could be:

* Using other libraries or functions for removing duplicates (e.g., `Set`, `Filter()`)
* Comparing with JavaScript's built-in `reduce()` function
* Using different data structures or algorithms (e.g., using a heap or priority queue)
* Considering factors like memory usage, cache performance, or parallelization

Lodash uniqBy vs Map destructuring (version: 0)

Lodash uniqBy vs [...new Map()]

Comparing performance of: `Lodash uniqBy vs new Map() Destructuring`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash uniqBy

new Map() Destructuring

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Lodash uniqBy vs Map destructuring (version: 0)

Lodash uniqBy vs [...new Map()]

Comparing performance of: Lodash uniqBy vs new Map() Destructuring

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash uniqBy

new Map() Destructuring

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash uniqBy vs new Map() Destructuring`