Benchmark: own solution vs lodash

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var updates = [{
        jobId: 1,
        type: 'a'
    },
    {
        jobId: 2,
        type: 'b'
    },
    {
        jobId: 3,
        type: 'c'
    },
    {
        jobId: 1,
        type: 'a'
    }

];

Tests:

own soliton
updates.filter( (update, index, updates) => index === updates.findIndex( (predicate) => predicate.jobId === update.jobId && predicate.type === update.type, ), );
lodash
_.uniqWith(updates, _.isEqual);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
own soliton
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 provided benchmark JSON and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to filter an array of updates: using the `filter()` method with a custom predicate function, implemented by the test user (own solution), and using the `uniqWith()` function from the Lodash library.

**Options Compared**

1. **Own Solution**: The test user's implementation uses a custom `filter()` method with a predicate function that checks for duplicate updates based on `jobId` and `type`. This approach relies on the developer's understanding of array filtering and JavaScript functions.
2. **Lodash (uniqWith)**: Lodash provides a `uniqWith()` function that allows removing duplicates from an array while preserving uniqueness across different properties. In this case, it's used to remove duplicate updates based on both `jobId` and `type`.

**Pros and Cons**

**Own Solution**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient since it only uses built-in JavaScript functions, potentially leading to better performance.
* Allows for fine-grained control over the filtering logic.

Cons:

* Requires a good understanding of array filtering and JavaScript functions, which might not be the case for all developers.
* May have edge cases or bugs that can affect performance or correctness.

**Lodash (uniqWith)**

Pros:

* Provides a pre-built function with a well-tested implementation, reducing the likelihood of errors.
* Often includes additional features, such as handling null and undefined values, which might not be necessary in this specific use case.

Cons:

* Introduces an external dependency (Lodash), which can add overhead for users who don't want to include it in their project.
* May have a performance impact due to the additional library overhead.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:

* Array manipulation
* Object manipulation
* String manipulation
* Function utility

`uniqWith()` is specifically designed to remove duplicates from an array while preserving uniqueness across different properties. In this case, it's used to simplify the filtering logic by leveraging Lodash's existing implementation.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark JSON. However, if we consider the custom predicate function used in the own solution, it employs a JavaScript feature known as **arrow functions**, which were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Arrow functions provide a concise way to define small, anonymous functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or libraries, here are a few options:

1. `Array.prototype.filter()` with a regular function instead of an arrow function: This would be a more traditional approach but might have performance implications due to the overhead of creating and executing the function.
2. `Array.prototype.findIndex()` in combination with `Array.prototype.includes()`: This would require two additional calls, increasing the complexity of the filtering logic.
3. Using other libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda, which offer similar functionality to Lodash.

In summary, the benchmark is comparing a custom implementation using `filter()` and a predicate function against the more concise and often preferred approach using Lodash's `uniqWith()`.

Related benchmarks:

own solution vs lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: own soliton vs lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

own soliton

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):