Benchmark: Lodash isequal vs string comparison

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max = 10000000;

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max; i++) { arr2.push(String(i)); }
arr2.push('asd')

var arr3 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max; i++) { arr3.push(String(i)); }
arr2.push('foo')

Tests:

Native
let isEqual = true arr2.forEach(function (item, idx) { isEqual = item === arr3[idx]; });
Lodash.js filter
_.isEqual(arr2, arr3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	6.7 Ops/sec
Lodash.js filter	39342556.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark is testing two approaches to compare arrays: one using Lodash.js and another using native JavaScript methods.

**Approaches compared**

1. **Lodash.js**: The `_.isEqual` function from Lodash.js is used to compare two arrays.
2. **Native JavaScript**: A custom implementation using the `forEach` method and conditional assignment (`item === arr3[idx]`) to compare two arrays.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Lodash.js:**

Pros:

* Simplified code: The Lodash.js implementation requires less code than the native JavaScript implementation.
* Easier to read: The use of a library provides a clear indication of what's happening in the code, making it easier for others (or future versions) to understand.

Cons:

* Overhead: Using an external library adds overhead due to loading and parsing time.
* Performance impact: Depending on the size of the arrays being compared, the Lodash.js implementation might be slower than native JavaScript.

**Native JavaScript:**

Pros:

* No overhead: Native JavaScript is executed directly without loading an external library, reducing overhead.
* Potential performance improvement: For large arrays, native JavaScript might be faster due to better optimizations and caching.

Cons:

* More complex code: The custom implementation requires more lines of code than the Lodash.js version.
* Readability impact: Without a clear indication that this is a custom implementation, others (or future versions) might struggle to understand what's happening in the code.

**Library used**

Lodash.js is a popular utility library for JavaScript. It provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, `_.isEqual` is used to compare two arrays.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code is standard JavaScript, with no advanced features like async/await, ES6 modules, or WebAssembly.

**Other alternatives**

If the Lodash.js implementation were not available, alternative approaches to compare arrays using native JavaScript could include:

* Using the `===` operator for array comparison (less efficient than `forEach`)
* Utilizing a library like Jest or Mocha with built-in assertions
* Implementing a custom array comparison function from scratch

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, readability, and maintainability compared to Lodash.js.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash isequal vs string comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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