Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native Map 11111111232312

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
arr2.map(function (element, index) { return element*2; });
Lodash.js filter
_.map(arr2, function (element, index) { return element*2; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case for comparing the performance of two approaches: native JavaScript map function and Lodash.js map function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native Map Function**: The native JavaScript map function, which is built-in to most modern browsers.
2. **Lodash.js Map Function**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a utility function `map` for iterating over arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Native Map Function:**

Pros:

* Built-in functionality, no additional library dependencies
* Potential performance advantage due to optimized implementation

Cons:

* May have limitations in terms of browser support or version compatibility
* Execution may be slower due to interpretation overhead (e.g., parsing, execution)

**Lodash.js Map Function:**

Pros:

* Well-tested and widely used library with a strong community backing
* Can provide additional functionality beyond basic mapping (e.g., filtering, sorting)

Cons:

* Adds an extra dependency (library) that may slow down execution
* May introduce additional overhead due to library-specific features or implementation

**Library: Lodash.js**

Lodash.js is a popular JavaScript utility library developed by Isaac Schankar. It provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object manipulation, and functional programming.

In this benchmark, the `map` function from Lodash.js is used to transform the elements of an array by multiplying each element by 2.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no explicit mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers often support additional features like `let`, `const`, and arrow functions, which may affect execution performance. But these are not specific to the map function and can be ignored for the purpose of this analysis.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following options:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides a `map` function similar to Lodash.js.
* **Array.prototype.reduce()`: A native JavaScript method for reducing an array by applying a transformation function to each element and accumulating the results.
* **Custom implementation**: You could also implement your own map function using basic loop constructs or recursive functions.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native Map 11111111232312 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

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):