Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash uniq vs set->array
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Set vs Array
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
I'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net. **Overview** The benchmark tests two approaches for removing duplicates from an array of numbers: using a `Set` object and using the Lodash library's `uniq()` function. The test measures which approach is faster, on average, across multiple executions. **What are being compared?** Two main approaches are being compared: 1. **Using a Set object**: This approach uses JavaScript's built-in `Set` object to remove duplicates from an array. A `Set` object is a collection of unique values, and when you convert an array to a `Set`, it automatically removes any duplicate elements. 2. **Using Lodash's uniq() function**: This approach uses the Lodash library's `uniq()` function to remove duplicates from an array. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons for each approach: **Set Object Approach:** Pros: * Fast and lightweight, as it only requires a single object creation * No external dependencies required Cons: * Requires knowledge of the `Set` object's behavior and its potential performance implications * May not be suitable for very large datasets due to memory constraints **Lodash's uniq() function Approach:** Pros: * Easy to use and understand, as it's a well-known library function * Can handle large datasets efficiently, as Lodash is optimized for performance Cons: * Requires an external dependency on the Lodash library * May have slower performance compared to the Set object approach due to overhead from library functions **Library used:** The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. **Other Considerations** Some additional considerations when comparing these two approaches: * The Set object approach may be faster for small datasets, as it involves fewer function calls and object creations. * However, the Set object approach may be slower for very large datasets due to memory constraints and potential garbage collection pauses. * Lodash's uniq() function is optimized for performance and can handle larger datasets more efficiently than the Set object approach. **Alternative approaches** Other alternative approaches that could have been used in this benchmark include: * Using a custom implementation of the `uniq()` function without an external library * Using other array manipulation functions, such as `filter()` or `reduce()`, to remove duplicates * Using other data structures, such as a Map object, to remove duplicates However, these alternative approaches would likely require more development effort and expertise, making the Set object approach with Lodash's uniq() function a convenient and efficient choice for benchmarking.
Related benchmarks:
lodash uniq vs native uniq
uniqBy vs stringify performance
lodash uniq vs set - 3
Lodash uniqBy vs Javascript uniqBy
lodash uniq vs spread new Set() medium size
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?