Benchmark: lodash uniq vs deconstructed set

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Set
var l = [...new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7])]; return l;
Array
var l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7]; return _.uniq(l);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set
Array

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to remove duplicates from an array: using the `Set` data structure in JavaScript (deconstructed approach) versus using the `uniq` function from the Lodash library (traditional approach).

**Options compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Deconstructed Set**: This approach uses the `new Set()` constructor and then deconstructs it to get an array of unique values.
2. **Lodash uniq**: This approach uses the `uniq` function from the Lodash library to remove duplicates from the array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Deconstructed Set**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, as it leverages the built-in `Set` data structure which has an average time complexity of O(1) for insertion and lookup operations.
	+ Cons: May not be familiar to developers who are not aware of this approach or have not used sets in JavaScript before. Additionally, deconstructing a set requires creating a new array, which may lead to additional memory allocations and garbage collection overhead.
* **Lodash uniq**:
	+ Pros: Widely recognized and understood library function, easy to use, and well-documented. It also provides additional features like removing duplicates from other data structures like objects or arrays with duplicate values.
	+ Cons: May be slower than the deconstructed set approach due to the overhead of calling a library function.

**Library - Lodash uniq**

The `uniq` function in Lodash is a convenience wrapper around the built-in `Set` and `Array.prototype.filter()` methods. It removes duplicate elements from an array, returning a new array with unique values.

Here's a simplified example:
```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');

const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7];
const uniqArr = _.uniq(arr);
console.log(uniqArr); // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
```
**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you're not using Lodash, other approaches to remove duplicates from an array include:

* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` and keeping track of unique values
* Utilizing a library like `underscore` which provides a similar `uniq` function
* Implementing your own solution without relying on libraries (more complex and error-prone)

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

**Benchmark results**

The latest benchmark results show:

* The deconstructed set approach outperforms the Lodash `uniq` function in terms of executions per second.
* However, both approaches have similar raw execution times.

These results suggest that for this particular use case, the deconstructed set approach may be more efficient. Nevertheless, the choice between these two approaches ultimately depends on your specific requirements and familiarity with each method.

Related benchmarks:

lodash uniq vs deconstructed set (version: 0)

Difference between using uniq from Lodash and deconstructing a new set made of an array. Both returns a new array containing only unique values.

Comparing performance of: Set vs Array

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set

Array

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):