Benchmark: Lodash vs. Set Intersection Simple

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var first = [1, 3, 4, 5, 7];
var second = [2, 3, 5, 6];

Tests:

Javascript Set intersection
const setA = new Set(first); second.filter(setA.has);
Lodash intersection
_.intersection(first, second)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Javascript Set intersection
Lodash intersection

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark json and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is the core part of the benchmark, which describes the test to be performed. In this case, there are two benchmarks:

1. "Javascript Set intersection"
This benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript's native `Set` data structure for set intersection operations.
2. "Lodash intersection"
This benchmark tests the performance of the popular JavaScript utility library Lodash's `intersection()` function.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* JavaScript native `Set` data structure
* Lodash's `intersection()` function

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **JavaScript native `Set` data structure**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution due to optimized native implementation.
		+ Less memory overhead since it's a built-in data structure.
		+ Easier to understand and debug for developers familiar with JavaScript's native data structures.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more manual setup and optimization for edge cases.
		+ Limited functionality compared to external libraries like Lodash.
2. **Lodash's `intersection()` function**
	* Pros:
		+ More comprehensive set of features, including support for custom comparators.
		+ Easier to use and understand for developers unfamiliar with JavaScript's native data structures.
		+ Often provides better error handling and edge case support.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower execution compared to the native `Set` data structure due to external library overhead.
		+ May require additional dependencies and setup.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used in two ways:

1. The `intersection()` function is used directly in the "Lodash intersection" test case.
2. The JavaScript source code for Lodash (lodash.min.js) is included via a CDN link in the "Html Preparation Code".

The purpose of using Lodash's `intersection()` function is to provide a standardized, widely-used implementation of set intersection that can be compared against the native `Set` data structure.

**Special JS Features**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it relies on the fact that modern JavaScript engines (like Firefox 106) support the `Set` data structure and the `intersection()` function from Lodash.

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

1. **External library: Set**
	* A lightweight JavaScript library for working with sets.
2. **Custom implementation**
	* Writing your own custom set intersection algorithm using bitwise operations or array manipulation.
3. **Other JavaScript libraries:**
	* Other utility libraries like Ramda, Underscore.js, or Liskell that provide similar functionality to Lodash.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its pros and cons, and may not offer the same level of performance, ease of use, or comprehensive feature set as the native `Set` data structure or Lodash's `intersection()` function.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs. Set Intersection Simple (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Javascript Set intersection vs Lodash intersection

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Javascript Set intersection

Lodash intersection

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):