Benchmark: Lodash uniqBy vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

lodash
const x = [{id: 1}, {id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 3}]; const y = _.uniqBy(x, 'id'); console.log(y);
native
const x = [{id: 1}, {id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 3}]; const y = x.reduce((arr, curr) => { const found = arr.find(a => a.id === curr.id); if (!found) arr.push(curr); return arr; }, []); console.log(y)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/136.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	564091.4 Ops/sec
native	571825.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros/cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to remove duplicates from an array based on a specific property (`id` in this case). The two approaches are:

1. Using the `lodash` library (specifically, the `uniqBy` function).
2. Implementing the logic manually using JavaScript's built-in methods.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

### 1. Lodash uniqBy vs Native

**Benchmark Definition:** 
```javascript
const x = [{id: 1}, {id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 3}];
const y = _.uniqBy(x, 'id');
console.log(y);
```
This test case uses the `lodash` library to remove duplicates from the array `x`. The `_.uniqBy` function takes an array and a property key as arguments and returns a new array with unique elements based on that property.

**Library:** `_`

* **Purpose:** The Lodash library provides a collection of reusable JavaScript functions. In this case, `_.uniqBy` is used to remove duplicates from arrays.
* **Pros:**
	+ Simplifies code and reduces boilerplate.
	+ Provides a robust and efficient implementation of array deduplication.
* **Cons:**
	+ Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library).
	+ May introduce performance overhead due to the additional function call.

### 2. Native

**Benchmark Definition:** 
```javascript
const x = [{id: 1}, {id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 3}];
const y = x.reduce((arr, curr) => {
  const found = arr.find(a => a.id === curr.id);
  if (!found) arr.push(curr);
  return arr;
}, []);
console.log(y);
```
This test case implements the logic manually to remove duplicates from the array `x`. The `reduce` method is used to iterate over the array and push unique elements to a new array.

**Pros:**

* No external dependencies.
* Can be optimized for performance by using built-in methods.
* Provides fine-grained control over the implementation.

**Cons:**

* More code to write and maintain.
* May require more expertise in JavaScript's built-in methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to implement an alternative approach, some options could include:

1. Using `Set` data structure to remove duplicates.
2. Utilizing a library like `array-deduplication`.
3. Implementing a custom implementation using recursion or iteration.

However, these alternatives might not be as efficient or concise as the native JavaScript solution or the Lodash library solution.

**Performance Considerations**

The benchmark results show that the native approach outperforms the Lodash library approach in terms of executions per second. This is likely due to the fact that the native implementation avoids the overhead of function calls and uses built-in methods more efficiently.

Keep in mind that performance can vary depending on the specific use case, data size, and other factors. It's essential to consider these factors when choosing an approach for your specific requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash uniqBy vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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