Benchmark: lodash each vs for of loop

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) {
  values.push({ a: i });
}

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.each(values, function(v,i) { count++; })
native
var count = 0; for (const v of values) { count++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	2080.1 Ops/sec
native	15160.1 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 benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches:

1. **_.each(values, function(v,i) { count++; })**: This uses the Lodash library, specifically its `forEach` method. The `_.each` method iterates over an array using a callback function.
2. **for (const v of values) { count++; }**: This is a native JavaScript approach using a for-of loop to iterate over the array.

**Lodash Library**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a lot of helper functions. In this case, `_` is an alias for the Lodash root object, and `lodash.forEach` is a function that iterates over an array using a callback function.

**Native JavaScript Approach**

The native approach uses a for-of loop to iterate over the array. A for-of loop allows you to iterate over arrays or other iterable objects without having to specify the length of the array beforehand.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **_.each(values, function(v,i) { count++; })**: Pros:
	+ Concise and easy to read
	+ Lodash provides a familiar interface for iterating over arrays
Cons:
	+ Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library)
	+ May incur overhead due to the additional function call
* **for (const v of values) { count++; }**: Pros:
	+ No dependencies or overhead
	+ Can be faster since it doesn't involve a function call
Cons:
	+ Requires understanding of for-of loops and array destructuring
	+ Can be less readable if not familiar with the syntax

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark only tests these two approaches, so we can't compare performance to other methods like `forEach`, `map`, or `reduce`.
* The test uses a small array size (100,000 elements), which might not accurately represent larger datasets.
* The benchmark doesn't account for potential side effects of the iterations (e.g., modifying the original array).

**Latest Benchmark Results**

The latest results show that the native approach (`for (const v of values) { count++; }`) outperforms the Lodash approach (`_.each(values, function(v,i) { count++; })`). This suggests that, in this specific scenario, using a native for-of loop might be faster.

As for special JavaScript features or syntax, there's none mentioned in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

lodash each vs for of loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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