Benchmark: lodash10001 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var peopleArr = [];
var peopLen = 99999;
for (let i = 0; i < peopLen; i++) {
  var obj = {
    name: 'Alex',
    age: Math.floor(Math.random() * 100),
    gender: Math.floor(Math.random() * 2) === 1 ? 'male' : 'female',
    isProgrammer: Math.floor(Math.random() * 2) === 1
  }

  peopleArr[i] = obj;
}

Tests:

Native
peopleArr.map(item => item);
Lodash
_.map(peopleArr, item => item);

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.

Let's break down the benchmarking scenario you provided.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to mapping over an array of objects in JavaScript:

1. **Native**: This approach uses the built-in `map()` method of the Array prototype, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard.
2. **Lodash**: This approach uses the `_map()` function from the Lodash library, which provides additional functionality and optimizations for various array operations.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. Using the built-in `map()` method (Native)
2. Using the `_map()` function from Lodash

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Native Approach:**

Pros:

* Faster execution, as it's a native implementation with optimized code
* Smaller binary size, as it relies on the browser's built-in Array prototype
* Better cache locality, since the `map()` method is implemented in the browser's engine

Cons:

* May have slower performance for certain use cases due to caching or other optimizations
* Limited functionality compared to Lodash's `_map()` function

**Lodash Approach:**

Pros:

* Often provides better performance for complex array operations, as it uses optimized algorithms and caching
* Offers additional features and functionality, such as handling null/undefined values, filtering, and more
* Can be useful for developers who need to perform specific transformations on arrays in their codebase

Cons:

* Slower execution due to the overhead of loading the Lodash library
* Larger binary size compared to the native `map()` method
* May have slower performance due to cache locality issues or other optimizations

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures. Its `_map()` function is a high-performance implementation that uses caching and other optimizations to provide fast execution times.

The Lodash library can be used by including the CDN link provided in the benchmark's `Html Preparation Code`. This allows developers to leverage Lodash's functionality and optimizations for array operations without having to implement them manually.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmarking scenario. The focus is on comparing two approaches: native `map()` method versus Lodash's `_map()` function.

Related benchmarks:

lodash10001 (version: 0)

1

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):