Benchmark: lodash partition vs remove 2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function randomIntFromInterval(min, max) { // min and max included 
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min + 1) + min)
}

var tabl = Array.from({ length: 10000 }).map((value, i) => ({ id: i, value: randomIntFromInterval(0, i) }))

Tests:

lodash partition
const [a, b] = _.partition(tabl, e => e.value % 2)
lodash remove
const a = _.remove(tabl, e => e.value % 2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash partition
lodash remove

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 on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares two approaches: `lodash.partition()` and `lodash.remove()`. Both methods are used to filter an array (`tabl`) based on a condition (in this case, whether the value of each element is even or odd).

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. `lodash.partition()`: This method creates two arrays, one with elements that pass the test and another with elements that don't.
2. `lodash.remove()`: This method removes all elements from the array that pass the test.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* `lodash.partition()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more efficient when working with large datasets, as it avoids mutating the original array and returns two new arrays.
		- Allows for easy filtering and sorting of results.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates an additional array, which can consume memory and cause performance issues if not handled properly.
* `lodash.remove()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Modifies the original array, reducing memory usage and potentially improving performance.
		- Can be useful when working with large datasets and need to modify the existing data.
	+ Cons:
		- Mutates the original array, which can lead to unexpected side effects if not handled carefully.
		- May cause performance issues if the removed elements are sparse or have complex references.

**Library:**

The `lodash` library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array and object manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash.partition()` and `lodash.remove()` are used to perform filtering operations on the `tabl` array.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript has several features and syntaxes that can impact performance, such as:

* `for...of` loops vs traditional `for` loops
* Arrow functions (`() => { ... }`) vs regular function expressions (`function { ... }`)
* `let`, `const`, and `var` declarations
* ES6+ classes, modules, and async/await

These features can affect performance depending on the specific use case and implementation.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches to filter arrays in JavaScript, consider:

* Vanilla JavaScript methods like `Array.prototype.filter()`, `Array.prototype.map()`, and `Array.prototype.reduce()`
* Other utility libraries like Lodash (with its own set of functions), Ramda, or Immutable.js
* In-house implementation using custom functions or classes

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best choice depends on your specific requirements, performance constraints, and personal preferences.

Related benchmarks:

lodash partition vs remove 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash partition vs lodash remove

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash partition

lodash remove

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):