Benchmark: lodash unionWith vs Set for merging without duplicates test2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

Set&map
var first = [ {'ID': 2, 'FirstName': 'Jim'}, {'ID': 4, 'FirstName': 'Tom'}, {'ID': 5, 'FirstName': 'George'} ]; var second = [ {'ID': 2, 'FirstName': 'Jim'}, {'ID': 7, 'FirstName': 'Tom'}, {'ID': 8, 'FirstName': 'George'} ]; const ids = new Set( first.map((identifiedFile) => identifiedFile.id) ); second.forEach((identifiedFile) => { if (!ids.has(identifiedFile.id)) first.push(identifiedFile); }); return first
unionWith2
var first = [ {'ID': 2, 'FirstName': 'Jim'}, {'ID': 4, 'FirstName': 'Tom'}, {'ID': 5, 'FirstName': 'George'} ]; var second = [ {'ID': 2, 'FirstName': 'Jim'}, {'ID': 7, 'FirstName': 'Tom'}, {'ID': 8, 'FirstName': 'George'} ]; return _.unionWith(first, second, _.isEqual);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set&map
unionWith2

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 definition and explanation.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test is designed to compare two approaches for merging arrays without duplicates:

1. Using JavaScript's built-in `Set` data structure with the `map()` method.
2. Using Lodash's `unionWith()` function, which takes a callback function to check for equality.

**Options Compared**

We have two options being compared:

**Option 1: Set&map (using JavaScript's Set)**

* This approach uses the `Set` data structure to create a set of unique IDs from the first array (`first.map((identifiedFile) => identifiedFile.id)`).
* It then iterates over the second array (`second`) and checks if each ID is in the set using `!ids.has(identifiedFile.id)`. If not, it adds the element to the original array (`first.push(identifiedFile)`).

**Pros:**

* Efficient use of memory for storing unique IDs.
* Fast lookup times using the `Set` data structure.

**Cons:**

* Requires additional code to create and maintain the set.
* May have performance overhead due to the iteration over the second array.

**Option 2: unionWith (using Lodash)**

* This approach uses Lodash's `unionWith()` function, which takes a callback function to check for equality (`_.isEqual`).
* The `unionWith()` function iterates over both arrays and checks for each element if it matches the callback function. If not, it adds the element to the resulting array.

**Pros:**

* Simplifies code and reduces boilerplate.
* Lodash's implementation might be optimized for performance.

**Cons:**

* May have performance overhead due to the iteration over both arrays.
* Requires additional dependencies (Lodash).

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, `unionWith()` is used to perform an array union without duplicates.

**Special JS Features/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for merging arrays without duplicates could include:

* Using the `filter()` method with a callback function.
* Using a library like Underscore.js's `union()` function.
* Implementing a custom solution using a data structure such as a trie or a hash table.

However, these alternatives might not be tested on MeasureThat.net, and their performance would depend on various factors such as the specific implementation and the JavaScript engine used.

Related benchmarks:

lodash unionWith vs Set for merging without duplicates test2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set&map vs unionWith2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set&map

unionWith2

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):