Benchmark: Lodash find vs object.reduce

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var key = {
  p: {
    k: 'p'
  },
  o: {
    k: 'o'
  },
  m: {
    k: 'm'
  }
}

Tests:

Object.value.reduce
Object.values(key).reduce((a,c)=>([...a,...c.k]),[])
lodash find
_.find(key,{k:'m'})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.value.reduce
lodash find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.value.reduce	2037606.8 Ops/sec
lodash find	1904234.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to achieve a similar goal:

1. Using `Object.values()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()`
2. Using Lodash's `find()` function

**Approach 1: Using `Object.values()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()`**

This approach involves the following steps:

* Extracting the values of an object using `Object.values()`.
* Reducing the resulting array to a single value using `Array.prototype.reduce()`.

The benchmark defines a sample object `key` with three properties (`p`, `o`, and `m`) and each property has a nested key (`k`). The goal is to extract the values of the top-level keys (`p`, `o`, and `m`) and concatenate them into an array using `reduce()`.

**Pros:**

* This approach is a basic, built-in JavaScript solution that leverages the standard library.
* It allows for fine-grained control over the implementation details.

**Cons:**

* It may be slower than alternative approaches, especially for larger datasets or more complex transformations.
* The code can become verbose and harder to read, as it involves multiple function calls and explicit type conversions.

**Approach 2: Using Lodash's `find()` function**

This approach uses the `find()` function from the Lodash library to achieve the same goal. The `find()` function takes two arguments:

* An object with a value that matches the specified condition.
* A callback function that extracts the desired property (`k`) from the matched object.

The benchmark defines the same sample object `key` and uses Lodash's `find()` function to extract the values of the top-level keys (`p`, `o`, and `m`). The resulting array is then passed to `lodash.min.js`.

**Pros:**

* This approach provides a concise and readable implementation using a well-known library.
* It can be faster than the built-in JavaScript solution, as Lodash's optimized implementation may outperform the standard library.

**Cons:**

* It relies on an external library, which might introduce dependencies or versioning issues.
* The performance difference between this approach and the built-in JavaScript solution is not guaranteed to be significant.

**Library Considerations**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library to provide a convenient implementation of the `find()` function. This choice allows developers to focus on testing the specific problem at hand without worrying about implementing the solution from scratch.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (Not applicable in this example)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested or utilized in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for achieving similar results could include:

* Using `Object.keys()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()`
* Utilizing a library like Ramda, which provides a functional programming approach to array operations
* Leveraging the `map()` function with `Object.values()` and `toString()` concatenation

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, readability trade-offs, or additional dependencies compared to the original approaches being tested.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash find vs object.reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.value.reduce vs lodash find

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.value.reduce

lodash find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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