Benchmark: lodash omit vs native function

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function omit(obj, props) {
  const newObj = {};
  for (let prop in obj) {
    if (!props.includes(prop)) {
      newObj[prop] = obj[prop];
    }
  }
  return newObj;
}

Tests:

lodash omit
const myObj = { name: 'John', age: 30, city: 'New York', country: 'USA' }; const newObj = _.omit(myObj, ['city', 'country']);
native function
const myObj = { name: 'John', age: 30, city: 'New York', country: 'USA' }; const newObj = omit(myObj, ['city', 'country']);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash omit
native function

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.

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to remove specific properties from an object: Lodash's `omit` function and a native JavaScript implementation.

**Lodash's `omit` function:**

* Description: Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides various utility functions. The `omit` function takes an object and an array of property names as input, and returns a new object with the specified properties removed.
* Library purpose: To provide a convenient way to remove specific properties from objects in a concise and readable manner.

**Native JavaScript implementation:**

* Description: The native implementation is a custom function that achieves the same result as Lodash's `omit` function. It iterates over each property in the input object, checks if it exists in the array of excluded properties, and only includes it in the new object if it doesn't.
* Pros:
	+ No external dependency on a library.
	+ Potential for better performance since it doesn't involve a function call to Lodash.
* Cons:
	+ Requires more code and effort to implement.
	+ May be less readable or maintainable, especially for complex exclusion logic.

**Comparison:**

The benchmark compares the two approaches using the same input object (`myObj`) and excluding the same properties (`['city', 'country']`). The results show that:

* The native implementation outperforms Lodash's `omit` function in terms of executions per second.
* However, the execution times are relatively close, suggesting that both approaches have acceptable performance.

**Other considerations:**

* Error handling: Both implementations assume that the input object and exclusion array are valid. In a real-world scenario, you might want to add error handling for cases like invalid inputs or typos in the exclusion array.
* Code maintainability: While the native implementation is more concise, it may be harder to read and understand due to its simplicity. Lodash's `omit` function provides a clear and readable API.
* Library choice: If you need to perform this operation frequently or want to leverage other Lodash functions, using the library might be a better choice.

**Alternatives:**

* Other libraries that provide similar functionality to Lodash's `omit` include:
	+ Underscore.js
	+ Ramda
	+ Moment.js (for more complex filtering)
* Native JavaScript alternatives for removing properties from objects might include:
	+ Using the `Object.keys()` and `forEach()` methods in combination.
	+ Utilizing the `reduce()` method to build a new object.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of convenience, readability, or performance as Lodash's `omit` function.

Related benchmarks:

lodash omit vs native function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash omit vs native function

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash omit

native function

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):