Benchmark: lodash each vs loop over entries on objects

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var person = JSON.stringify({
  first_name: "first",
  last_name: "last",
  age: 5,
  random: "19284984343",
})
var ourObj = { a12345: person, b1234: person, c: person, d: person }

Tests:

lodash
_.chain(ourObj) .map((val, key) => { const json = JSON.parse(val) return { key: json } }) .filter(Boolean) .value()
vanilla
let entries = Object.entries(ourObj) let arr = [] for (let i in entries) { const json = JSON.parse(entries[i][1]) arr.push({ [entries[i][0]] : json}) } arr.filter(Boolean)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
vanilla

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures two approaches to processing objects in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash**: Using the `lodash` library, which provides utility functions for functional programming, array manipulation, and object iteration.
2. **Vanilla**: A vanilla JavaScript implementation, without any external libraries.

**What's tested?**

In this benchmark, we're comparing the performance of two methods to process an object:

* **Lodash**: The `_.chain()` method is used to create a pipeline of functions that operate on the input object (`ourObj`). Specifically, it uses `_map()`, `_filter(Boolean)`, and finally `_value()` to transform the data.
* **Vanilla**: A manual implementation using a `for...in` loop to iterate over the object's entries, parse each value as JSON, and construct a new array of transformed objects.

**Options compared**

The two approaches differ in their use of external libraries (Lodash) vs. built-in JavaScript functions (vanilla).

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to read and maintain due to the use of a well-established library.
		- Provides a familiar API for common data transformations.
	+ Cons:
		- Includes an external dependency, which may impact performance or security (depending on how it's included in the project).
* **Vanilla**:
	+ Pros:
		- No external dependencies, which can improve performance and reduce security risks.
		- Allows developers to control the implementation details.
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose code, requiring more manual effort for setup and error handling.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for functional programming, array manipulation, and object iteration. Its `chain()` method allows creating a pipeline of functions that operate on the input data, making it easier to write concise and readable code.

In this benchmark, we're using Lodash version 4.17.5.

**Special JS feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's typically available in modern browsers.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for processing objects could include:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.map()` and other array methods**: This approach would involve transforming the object's values using array methods, such as `map()`, `filter()`, and `reduce()`.
2. **Using a custom object iterator**: This approach would require implementing a custom iterator function to process each property in the object.
3. **Using a library like Ramda or Purescript**: These libraries provide functional programming utilities that could be used instead of Lodash.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability, depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash each vs loop over entries on objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs vanilla

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

vanilla

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):