Benchmark: Comparing performance of: _.uniqWith vs native impl vs _.uniqBy

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function _uniqTxes(newSelectedModelList) {
  return newSelectedModelList.filter(function({ txid }, key) {
    return !this.has((key = txid)) && this.add(key);
  }, new Set());
}

// Build random data set with duplicates 
function randomChar() {
    return 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 26));
}

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 50000; i++) {
    data.push ({
        txid: randomChar() + randomChar() +randomChar()
    });
}

Tests:

imp
_uniqTxes(data)
lodash.uniqWith
_.uniqWith(data, (a, b) => a.txid === b.txid);
lodash.uniqBy
_.uniqBy(data, 'txid');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

lodash.uniqBy

489/s

imp

418/s

lodash.uniqWith

1/s

Fastest: lodash.uniqBy (705.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ lodash.uniqBy: 489 ops/sec
• imp: 418 ops/sec
• lodash.uniqWith: 1 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
imp
lodash.uniqWith
lodash.uniqBy

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

lodash.uniqBy

373/s

imp

313/s

lodash.uniqWith

1/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lodash.uniqBy	373 Ops/sec
imp	313 Ops/sec
lodash.uniqWith	1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches for removing duplicates from an array: a native implementation (`imp`), `_.uniqWith` from Lodash, and `_.uniqBy` from Lodash. The test case uses a random dataset with 50,000 elements to simulate real-world scenarios.

**Native Implementation (`imp`)**

The native implementation uses the `Array.prototype.filter()` method to remove duplicates. It checks if each element exists in a set (using `has`) and adds new elements to the set as they are encountered. This approach relies on the set data structure to efficiently check for duplicates.

Pros:

* No external dependencies, making it more platform-agnostic.
* Can be optimized further using techniques like caching or memoization.

Cons:

* May have performance overhead due to the use of a set data structure and function calls.
* Less concise code compared to other approaches.

**Lodash's `_.uniqWith`**

This method uses a provided comparison function to determine uniqueness. In this case, it compares each element based on its `txid` property using the `a.txid === b.txid` condition.

Pros:

* Provides more flexibility in terms of comparing different properties.
* No additional dependencies required beyond Lodash.

Cons:

* May have performance overhead due to the use of a function call and property access.
* Less concise code compared to other approaches.

**Lodash's `_.uniqBy`**

This method uses a provided key function to determine uniqueness. In this case, it compares each element based on its `txid` property using the `a.txid === b.txid` condition, similar to `_.uniqWith`.

Pros:

* Provides more flexibility in terms of comparing different properties.
* No additional dependencies required beyond Lodash.

Cons:

* May have performance overhead due to the use of a function call and property access.
* Less concise code compared to other approaches.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. `_.uniqWith` and `_.uniqBy` are part of the Lodash library.

Pros:

* Provides a convenient way to perform common operations like uniqueness checks.
* Well-maintained and widely used, ensuring stability and compatibility.

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency, which may not be desirable in all scenarios.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these approaches, consider the trade-offs between performance, code conciseness, and maintainability. For most use cases, Lodash's `_.uniqWith` or `_.uniqBy` might be a better choice due to their flexibility and convenience. However, for specific scenarios where performance is critical, the native implementation (`imp`) might be a better option.

**Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash, there are alternative libraries like Underscore.js (which predates Lodash) or other implementation-specific solutions that provide similar functionality. Alternatively, you can implement your own uniqueness checks using the built-in `Array.prototype.filter()` method and set data structure.

Comparing performance of: _.uniqWith vs native impl vs _.uniqBy (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `imp vs lodash.uniqWith vs lodash.uniqBy`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

imp

lodash.uniqWith

lodash.uniqBy

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: _.uniqWith vs native impl vs _.uniqBy (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: imp vs lodash.uniqWith vs lodash.uniqBy

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

imp

lodash.uniqWith

lodash.uniqBy

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `imp vs lodash.uniqWith vs lodash.uniqBy`