Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Metafield Benchmark
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
uniqWith vs array filter
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var metafields = Array.from({ length: 16000 }, () => ({ key: Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000), namespace: Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) })); var myCopy = null;
Tests:
uniqWith
function findDuplicateMetafield(metafield, metafield2){ return metafield.namespace === metafield2.namespace && metafield.key === metafield2.key } myCopy = _.uniqWith(metafields, findDuplicateMetafield)
array filter
myCopy = metafields?.filter((metafield, index, self) => { return index === self.findIndex((current) => ( current.key === metafield.key && current.namespace === metafield.namespace )) })
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
uniqWith
array filter
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):
I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Overview** The benchmark tests two different approaches for finding duplicate metafields in an array: `_.uniqWith` from Lodash and a custom filtering approach using the `findIndex` method. The benchmark creates a large array of random metafield objects, which are then used to test both approaches. **Options being compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`.uniqWith`**: This is a function from Lodash that returns an array with only unique elements when passed an array and a function that defines the uniqueness criteria. 2. **Custom filtering approach**: This involves using the `findIndex` method to find the index of the first duplicate metafield, and then filtering out all but those duplicates. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach: * `.uniqWith`: + Pros: Fast and efficient, especially for large arrays. + Cons: Requires an external library (Lodash). + Additional overhead due to function call and argument passing. * Custom filtering approach: + Pros: No external library required, lightweight, and easy to understand. + Cons: May be slower than `.uniqWith` for very large arrays. **Library - Lodash** The `_.uniqWith` method is a part of the Lodash library. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object manipulation, and functional programming. Lodash's purpose is to provide a set of reusable functions that can be used to simplify common tasks in JavaScript development. In this case, `_.uniqWith` is specifically designed to find unique elements in an array based on a custom function. **Special JS feature - Arrow Functions** The benchmark uses arrow functions for the filtering approach (`myCopy = metafields?.filter((metafield, index, self) => {...})`). Arrow functions are a concise way to define small, single-expression functions. They were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and have since become a popular feature in modern JavaScript development. Arrow functions offer several advantages over traditional function expressions, including: * Concise syntax * Reduced overhead due to no explicit `this` binding * Improved readability However, arrow functions can also be less readable for more complex functions or when debugging is required, as the `this` context is not explicitly bound.
Related benchmarks:
Unique lodash vs vanilla
lodash vs map 4
lodash vs map 5
Array.prototype.every vs Lodash every()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?