Benchmark: Lodash - uniq - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var elements = [1,2,3,1,2,4,2,3,5,3]

Tests:

Lodash
_.uniq(elements)
Vanilla JS
[...new Set(elements)]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	26277466.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	3694268.8 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to remove duplicates from an array:

1. **Lodash - uniq**: This approach uses the `uniq` function from the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.
2. **Vanilla JS**: This approach uses the `Set` data structure and the spread operator (`[...new Set(elements)]`) to achieve the same result.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. Using an external library (Lodash) with its own implementation of removing duplicates.
2. Using native JavaScript features (Vanilla JS).

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Lodash - uniq:**

Pros:

* Easy to use: The `uniq` function is a simple, straightforward call that eliminates the need to write low-level array manipulation code.
* Well-tested: Lodash has extensive testing and a large community behind it, ensuring its implementation is reliable.

Cons:

* External dependency: Using an external library adds complexity and potential overhead due to the extra file size and potential security risks (e.g., vulnerabilities in the library).
* Additional overhead: The benchmark may need to include the cost of loading the Lodash library, which could impact performance.

**Vanilla JS:**

Pros:

* Native implementation: This approach leverages native JavaScript features, eliminating the need for an external library.
* Potential for better performance: Without the overhead of loading an external library, this approach might offer slightly faster execution times.

Cons:

* More complex code: The `Set` data structure and spread operator can be unfamiliar to developers, leading to more complexity in the benchmark's implementation.

**Other considerations**

* **Library vs. native implementation**: The choice between using a library like Lodash or implementing it natively with JavaScript features depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.
* **Additional dependencies**: If you need to support older browsers that don't have modern JavaScript features, using an external library might be necessary.

**Test users special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses the `Set` data structure and the spread operator (`[...new Set(elements)]`) in the Vanilla JS approach. These are native JavaScript features introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allow for efficient set operations.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash - uniq (version: 0)

Lodash - uniq

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Vanilla JS

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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