Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
testqwwefwf
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash partition vs forEach
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 tabl = Array.from({ length: 10000 }).map((value, i) => i)
Tests:
Lodash partition
let result = _.partition(tabl, v => v === 589)
forEach
let a = [], b = []; let result = tabl.forEach(item => {if (item === 589) {a.push(item)} else {b.push(item)}})
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Lodash partition
forEach
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what is being tested and compared. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark compares two approaches for filtering an array of 10,000 elements in JavaScript: using the `partition` function from the Lodash library and using a traditional `forEach` loop. The goal is to determine which approach performs better. **Options Compared** 1. **Lodash `partition`**: This function takes two arguments: the array to be partitioned (`tabl`) and a callback function that determines whether each element should be included in the first or second part of the partitioned array. 2. **Traditional `forEach` loop**: This approach uses a traditional `forEach` loop to iterate over the array, pushing elements to separate arrays (`a` and `b`) based on a condition. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Lodash `partition`**: * Pros: Concise, efficient, and well-optimized. * Cons: Requires an additional library (Lodash) to be included in the benchmark, which may introduce overhead. 2. **Traditional `forEach` loop**: * Pros: No additional libraries required, easy to understand and maintain. * Cons: More verbose, potentially slower due to the overhead of creating and manipulating arrays. **Other Considerations** 1. **Array size**: The benchmark tests an array of 10,000 elements, which is a relatively small dataset. Larger datasets may lead to different performance results. 2. **Browser and environment**: The benchmark runs on a Chrome 105 browser on Windows desktop, which might not be representative of all possible environments. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers, including `partition`. Its primary purpose is to simplify common tasks in JavaScript, making it easier to write concise and efficient code. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** None mentioned. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Array.from` in the script preparation code is a modern JavaScript feature (ECMAScript 2015+) that creates an array from an iterable source. Other older browsers may not support this syntax. **Alternatives** 1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Instead of using Lodash, you could implement the `partition` logic using only vanilla JavaScript functions (e.g., `map`, `filter`, `reduce`) to compare performance. 2. **Other partitioning libraries**: Depending on your specific use case, you might want to explore other partitioning libraries or algorithms, such as those from libraries like Ramda or Underscore.js. 3. **Custom implementation**: If you're familiar with the underlying logic of the `partition` function, you could implement it from scratch using only vanilla JavaScript functions to compare performance. Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches will depend on your specific requirements and constraints (e.g., size of dataset, browser support, performance considerations).
Related benchmarks:
Length vs Lodash Size
length -1 vs last
tesst1
hmmmmhmmm
Comparing lodash's times with Array.from
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?