Benchmark: Filter-Map: Lodash vs Native v3

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Native filter-map
data.filter(item => item.filtering).map(elem => elem.mapping)
Lodash filter-map
_.map(_.filter(data, item=>item.filtering), elem=>elem.mapping)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter-map
Lodash filter-map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 144 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native filter-map	69.9 Ops/sec
Lodash filter-map	68.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches to implement filtering and mapping operations on an array in JavaScript: native implementation using v3 (ECMAScript 2015) features, and a library-based approach using Lodash.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Native filter-map**: This approach uses native JavaScript features (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to implement filtering and mapping operations. Specifically, it utilizes the `Array.prototype.filter()` method to remove elements that don't meet a certain condition (`item.filtering`), followed by `Array.prototype.map()` to apply a transformation to each remaining element (`elem => elem.mapping`).
2. **Lodash filter-map**: This approach uses the Lodash library (version 4.17.4) to implement filtering and mapping operations. Specifically, it utilizes Lodash's `_filter()` and `_map()` functions with the `data` array as an argument.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Native filter-map**

Pros:

* Typically faster since it doesn't require a library overhead.
* Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the need to parse the Lodash code.

Cons:

* Requires support for ECMAScript 2015 features (which might not be available in older browsers or environments).
* May require additional setup and configuration for error handling and edge cases.

**Lodash filter-map**

Pros:

* Generally easier to understand and maintain, as it wraps complex logic in a reusable function.
* Can provide better error handling and edge case support out of the box.
* Supports older browsers and environments that don't have native ECMAScript 2015 features.

Cons:

* Comes with an additional library dependency (Lodash), which can introduce overhead.
* May be slower than native implementation due to the parsing and execution of Lodash code.

**Library and Syntax**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used for its `_filter()` and `_map()` functions. These functions provide a convenient way to perform filtering and mapping operations on arrays without having to write custom logic.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark utilizes ECMAScript 2015 features (specifically, `let` constants and arrow functions) in the native implementation. These features are not required for the Lodash approach, which relies solely on the `_filter()` and `_map()` functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to implementing filtering and mapping operations, some options include:

* Using other libraries like underscore.js or moment.js
* Implementing custom logic using JavaScript arrays and loops (without relying on built-in methods)
* Utilizing WebAssembly or other low-level optimization techniques

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these alternatives will depend on specific use cases, dataset sizes, and target environments.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

Filter-Map: Lodash vs Native v3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter-map vs Lodash filter-map

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native filter-map

Lodash filter-map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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