Benchmark: Array filter vs Lodash intersection 1

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  arr1.push(i);
}
arr1 = _.shuffle(arr1);

var arr2 = [];
for (let i = 500; i < 1500; i++) {
  arr2.push(i);
}
arr2 = _.shuffle(arr2);

Tests:

Native
arr1.filter(item => arr2.indexOf(item) > -1);
Lodash
_.intersection(arr1, arr2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
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 what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using the native JavaScript `filter` method and using the Lodash library's `intersection` function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native**: This option uses the native JavaScript `filter` method to create a new array that includes only elements from `arr1` for which there exists an element in `arr2`.
2. **Lodash**: This option uses the Lodash library's `intersection` function to achieve the same result as the native `filter` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Native Approach**

Pros:

* No additional dependencies or overhead.
* Well-established and widely supported by most JavaScript engines.

Cons:

* May be slower than the optimized version used by Lodash, especially for large inputs.
* Can be less efficient due to the need to create a new array with duplicates removed.

**Lodash Approach**

Pros:

* Optimized and highly optimized implementation using various techniques like memoization and caching.
* Often faster than the native approach for large inputs.

Cons:

* Requires an additional dependency (the Lodash library) which may not be desirable in all scenarios.
* Can add overhead due to the complexity of its internal workings.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark uses a simple shuffle function (`_.shuffle`) to randomize the order of elements in `arr1` and `arr2`. This helps to ensure that the results are representative of typical use cases, where data is often shuffled or rearranged before processing.

**Library (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string handling, and more. The `intersection` function in Lodash is used here to find the elements common to two arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two implementation approaches using standard JavaScript features.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for implementing array intersection could include:

* Using the `Set` data structure and checking membership using `has`
* Implementing an iterative solution that uses two pointers to find common elements
* Using a library like Ramda or Loom (another popular JavaScript utility library)

Related benchmarks:

Array filter vs Lodash intersection 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

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):