Benchmark: _.compact vs filter(v=>v)

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var elements = Array(1000).map(v=>_.random(0,20));

Tests:

_.compact
_.compact(elements);
filter(v=>v)
elements.filter(v=>v)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.compact
filter(v=>v)

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two methods to compact an array of random numbers:

1. `_.compact(elements)`: This method returns a new array containing only the elements that pass a test implemented by the presenter, in this case, it's just checking if the value is truthy.
2. `elements.filter(v => v)`: This method uses the Array.prototype.filter() method to create a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the callback function.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **_.compact(elements)**: Uses the Lodash library's compact() method, which is optimized for performance.
2. **elements.filter(v => v)**: Uses the native JavaScript Array.prototype.filter() method with a custom callback function.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. _.compact(elements):
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance by Lodash library
		+ May have additional optimizations not visible in native code
	* Cons:
		+ Requires including the Lodash library in the test environment
		+ May have higher overhead due to external dependency
2. elements.filter(v => v):
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies required
		+ Native JavaScript implementation, potentially faster and more lightweight
	* Cons:
		+ Less optimized for performance compared to _.compact()
		+ Requires manual implementation of the test function

**Other considerations**

In this benchmark, the use of Lodash's compact() method provides a convenient and efficient way to simplify arrays. However, using an external library can introduce additional overhead due to dependency resolution and loading.

The native JavaScript Array.prototype.filter() method is a more lightweight option but requires manual implementation of the test function, which may lead to errors or performance issues if not implemented correctly.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used in two ways:

1. `_.compact(elements)`: The compact() method is called on an array to remove falsy values.
2. `elements.filter(v => v)`: The filter() method is called on the same array with a custom callback function.

Both examples use Lodash's implementation of the respective methods, which are optimized for performance.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would impact its execution. However, it's worth noting that the use of arrow functions (`v => v`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

Related benchmarks:

_.compact vs filter(v=>v) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.compact vs filter(v=>v)

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.compact

filter(v=>v)

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):