Benchmark: uniqWith vs Set - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

lodash
const target = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const newObj = { a: Math.floor(Math.random() * 10) } target.push(newObj) } return _.uniqWith(target, function(val, otherVal) { return val.a === otherVal.a })
set
const target = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const newObj = { a: Math.floor(Math.random() * 10) } target.push(newObj) } const newArray = target.map((obj) => JSON.stringify(obj)); const newSet = new Set(newArray) return [...newSet].map((objString)=> JSON.parse(objString));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
set

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case hosted on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using `lodash` library's `uniqWith` function and using a built-in `Set` data structure.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions, including `uniqWith`.
2. **Set**: A built-in JavaScript data structure used to store unique values.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Lodash (`uniqWith`)

Pros:

* Provides a concise and expressive way to remove duplicates from an array.
* Often used in production code due to its popularity and maintainability.

Cons:

* Adds overhead due to the library's runtime dependencies and abstraction.
* Can be slower compared to native JavaScript implementations, especially for large datasets.

### Set

Pros:

* Native implementation with zero overhead due to lack of runtime dependencies.
* Efficient use of memory to store unique values.

Cons:

* Requires manual handling of JSON stringification and parsing (in this case).
* May not be as concise or expressive as `uniqWith`.

**Library Used**

In the benchmark, the `lodash` library is used for its `uniqWith` function. This function takes a callback function as an argument, which allows you to specify how duplicates should be handled.

```javascript
function(val, otherVal) { return val.a === otherVal.a }
```

This callback returns `true` if the values are equal, and `false` otherwise, allowing `uniqWith` to determine whether a value is a duplicate or not.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net uses WebAssembly (WASM) for executing benchmarks, which provides a sandboxed environment for running JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

uniqWith vs Set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs set

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

set

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):