Benchmark: string lodash vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var string1 = "string1"
var string2 = "string2"

Tests:

lodash
_.eq(string1, string2)
native
string1 === string2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	150469888.0 Ops/sec
native	161238208.0 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 definition and test cases.

**Overview**
The benchmark compares two approaches to checking if two strings are equal: using Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) versus the native `===` operator.

**Test Cases**

1. **Lodash:** The first test case uses Lodash's `_eq` function, which is a generic equality function that can be used with various types of data, including strings.
2. **Native:** The second test case uses the native `===` operator to compare two strings.

**Library: Lodash**
Lodash is a JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:
	* String manipulation (e.g., `_eq`, `_trim`, `_replace`)
	* Array manipulation (e.g., `_map`, `_filter`, `_reduce`)
	* Object manipulation (e.g., `_keys`, `_values`, `_pairs`)
	* Math and statistical functions (e.g., `_sum`, `_mean`, `_max`)

Lodash is widely used in JavaScript development, especially among developers who prefer a more functional programming style.

**Native `===` Operator**
The native `===` operator is a part of the JavaScript language itself. It checks if two values have the same value and type. In the context of this benchmark, it simply compares the actual strings using their Unicode code points.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash:**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be used with various types of data
		- Often preferred by developers who like functional programming
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library)
		- May have performance overhead due to the function call and lookup
* **Native `===` Operator:**
	+ Pros:
		- Fastest possible comparison, as it's a built-in operator
		- No additional dependencies or overhead
	+ Cons:
		- Limited to comparing strings only
		- May not work correctly with non-string types (e.g., numbers)

**Other Considerations**

* **String Interning**: In JavaScript, when you compare two identical strings using `===`, the browser may return a cached result. This is known as string interning. However, Lodash's `_eq` function does not perform string interning.
* **Unicode Support**: Both approaches should work correctly for most Unicode characters. However, there might be rare cases where the native `===` operator returns false positives or negatives.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to replace one of these test cases with an alternative, here are a few options:

1. Use a custom implementation: Write a simple function that compares two strings using a naive algorithm (e.g., concatenating and comparing the actual strings).
2. Use a different library: Instead of Lodash, use another popular JavaScript utility library like Ramda or Immutable.js.
3. Compare with a different comparison operator: Test with the `===` operator versus `==`, which performs type coercion.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the test results and may not be as representative of real-world usage scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

string lodash vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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