Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash times vs Array.from
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash times vs Array.from
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go 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:
n = 1000
Tests:
lodash times
_.times(n, () => null)
Array.from
Array.from({ length: n }, () => null)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash times
Array.from
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 138 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=607197" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
lodash times
220K/s
Array.from
191K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
lodash times
220,141 Ops/sec
Array.from
190,613 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark is comparing the performance of two JavaScript methods: 1. `_.times(n, () => null)` from the Lodash library 2. `Array.from({ length: n }, () => null)` (directly using the Array prototype) **What are we testing?** We're measuring the execution speed of both methods on an array of 1000 elements, where each element is assigned a value of `null`. The goal is to determine which method is faster in this specific scenario. **Options compared:** The two options being compared are: 1. Using Lodash's `times` function 2. Directly using the Array prototype with `Array.from` **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **Lodash's `times`:** Pros: * Provides a convenient way to create an array of elements * Can be useful when working with specific iteration patterns Cons: * May introduce overhead due to the use of a separate library * May not be optimized for performance, especially for large arrays **Directly using Array.prototype:** Pros: * Optimized for performance and memory efficiency * Can take advantage of native JavaScript optimizations Cons: * Requires manual implementation of the iteration pattern * May require more code and maintenance effort **Library used:** The Lodash library is a popular utility belt for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks. In this case, the `times` function is being used to create an array of elements. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that Lodash's `times` function uses a technique called "arity checking" to determine the number of arguments passed to the callback function, which can be useful when working with dynamic iteration patterns. **Other considerations:** * The benchmark is running on a desktop device with Chrome 107 and Mac OS X 10.15.7. * The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value indicates the average number of executions per second for each test case. * The benchmark results show that Lodash's `times` function is slightly faster than the direct Array.prototype implementation. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives to consider when creating JavaScript benchmarks include: * Using native JavaScript methods like `Array.from` and `forEach` * Utilizing WebAssembly or other performance-optimized libraries * Experimenting with different browser versions and platforms to identify potential performance differences * Adding more test cases to cover additional scenarios and edge cases
Related benchmarks
Comparing lodash's times with Array.from
Spread Operator vs Lodash [2]
lodash times vs new array fill vs array.from
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?