Benchmark: _.max vs Math.max

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
  arr.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

Tests:

_.max
_.max(arr);
Math.max
Math.max(...arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.max
Math.max

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.max	16178.9 Ops/sec
Math.max	20069.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two functions: `_.max` from the Lodash library and `Math.max`. The test creates an array of 1000 objects, each with a random value between 0 and 100. The purpose of this test is to measure which function is faster in executing.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **_.max (Lodash)**: This function takes an array as input and returns the maximum value.
2. **Math.max**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that also takes an array as input and returns the maximum value.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **_.max (Lodash)**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable code, as it's part of a well-known library.
		+ May be faster due to caching or other optimizations in Lodash.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which may not be ideal for production environments.
		+ May require additional setup or configuration.
2. **Math.max**
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies, making it a more self-contained solution.
		+ Highly optimized and implemented in native code, potentially leading to better performance.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable code, as it's not immediately apparent how to use `Math.max` with arrays.
		+ May not have the same level of caching or optimization as Lodash.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of functional programming helpers. The `_max` function is one of its utility functions, which is used here to compare performance. By using Lodash, the test creates more readable code and may benefit from optimizations implemented in the library.

**Special JS feature/syntax (none mentioned)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript features like arrays, loops, and functions.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare other options, here are a few examples:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: Instead of using Lodash's `_max` function, you could use the `reduce()` method on the array to find the maximum value.
2. **Using `Array.prototype.every()` and `Math.max()`**: You could create a custom implementation that uses `every()` to check if all elements in the array are less than or equal to the current max value, and then returns `Math.max()` with the initial value of 0.

These alternatives would require more code and may not be as optimized as the original comparison using Lodash's `_max` function.

Related benchmarks:

_.max vs Math.max (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.max vs Math.max

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.max

Math.max

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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