Benchmark: delwar lodash vs native 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array.from(Array(10000000).keys()).map((a) => {
    return {
        id: a,
        name: a
    }
});

Tests:

native
data.map(d => d);
lodash
_.map(data, (d) => d);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically comparing the performance of using Lodash's `map` function versus the native `map` function in JavaScript.

**What is tested?**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared:

1. **Native `map` function**: This is the built-in JavaScript function that applies a provided callback function to each element in an array.
2. **Lodash's `_map` function**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_map` function is one of its most commonly used functions, which applies a specified callback function to every element in an input array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Lodash's `_map` function
* Native JavaScript `map` function

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash's `_map` function**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a concise way to apply a callback function to every element in an array.
		+ Can be useful for complex transformations that require multiple steps.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds unnecessary overhead due to the need to import and initialize Lodash.
		+ May not provide significant performance benefits compared to native JavaScript functions.
2. **Native JavaScript `map` function**:
	* Pros:
		+ Does not introduce additional overhead or dependencies.
		+ Can be optimized by JavaScript engines for better performance.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code to achieve the same result as Lodash's `_map`.
		+ May have subtle differences in behavior compared to Lodash's implementation.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a utility library to provide a convenient way to apply the `map` function to an array. The `_map` function is specifically designed for this purpose and is optimized for performance.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may optimize certain functions or methods differently than others, which could impact performance.

**Other alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash, there are other alternatives to implement a `map` function, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach` and then using the `map` method on each iteration.
* Creating a custom function that iterates over the array using `for...of` or `forEach`.
* Utilizing other libraries like Ramda or Underscore.js (similar to Lodash).

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or complexity, depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

delwar lodash vs native 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

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):