Benchmark: Lodash vs Vanillin

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var keywordsOnPage = new Array(100).fill({}).map((val, i) => ({id: i}));
var selectedKeywords = new Array(20000).fill({}).map((val, i) => ({id: i}));
var obj = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 10; i < len; i++) {
  var arr = []
  obj['key' + i] = arr
  for (var n = 0, len = 10; n < len; n++) {
    arr.push({ ['key' + n]: n });
  }
}

Tests:

Selected Items Count (Lodash)
_.filter(keywordsOnPage, (keyword) => _.some(selectedKeywords, (selected) => selected.id === keyword.id)).length;
Selected Items Count (JS)
keywordsOnPage.filter((keyword) => selectedKeywords.some((selected) => selected.id === keyword.id)).length;
_.filter
_.filter(selectedKeywords, (keyword) => keyword.id > 19990)
[].filter
selectedKeywords.filter((keyword) => keyword.id > 19990)
_.some
_.some(selectedKeywords, (keyword) => keyword.id === 19990)
[].some
selectedKeywords.some((keyword) => keyword.id === 19990)
_.reduce
_.reduce(obj, (acc, val, key) => { acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val })); return acc; }, {})
Object.entries().reduce()
Object.entries(obj).reduce((acc, [key, val]) => { acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val })); return acc; }, {})
_.forEach
_.forEach(selectedKeywords, (keyword) => keyword.id === null)
[].forEach
selectedKeywords.forEach((keyword) => keyword.id === null);
JS isString
const isString = typeof 'str' === 'string';
_.isString()
const isString = _.isString('str');
_.find();
find(selectedKeywords, (keyword) => keyword.id > 19990);
[].find()
selectedKeywords.find((keyword) => keyword.id > 19990);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Selected Items Count (Lodash)
Selected Items Count (JS)
_.filter
[].filter
_.some
[].some
_.reduce
Object.entries().reduce()
_.forEach
[].forEach
JS isString
_.isString()
_.find();
[].find()

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.

It looks like you have a JSON string containing test results from a browser rendering engine benchmark. I'll help you parse and summarize the data.

Here are some key observations:

* The tests were run on Chrome 105, with various operating systems (Mac OS X) and devices (Desktop).
* There is significant variation in execution counts between different tests:
	+ `Selected Items Count (JS)` has the highest execution count at 79931.5078125/sec.
	+ `[].forEach` has a low execution count at 13334.1357421875/sec.
	+ Other tests have execution counts ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands per second.
* Some tests, like `_.some` and `_.filter`, are variations of the same test with slightly different implementations (e.g., Lodash vs. native JavaScript).
* The tests seem to be testing different aspects of browser rendering, such as handling arrays and iterating over them.

If you'd like to analyze this data further or extract specific insights, please let me know what you're looking for!

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Vanillin (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Selected Items Count (Lodash) vs Selected Items Count (JS) vs _.filter vs [].filter vs _.some vs [].some vs _.reduce vs Object.entries().reduce() vs _.forEach vs [].forEach vs JS isString vs _.isString() vs _.find(); vs [].find()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Selected Items Count (Lodash)

Selected Items Count (JS)

_.filter

[].filter

_.some

[].some

_.reduce

Object.entries().reduce()

_.forEach

[].forEach

JS isString

_.isString()

_.find();

[].find()

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):