Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
map lodash vs natvie
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash map vs js native map
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-WFN04846sdKMIP5LKNphMaWzU7YpMyCU245etK3g/2ARYbPK9Ub18eG+ljU96qKRCWh+quCY7yefSmlkQw1ANQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var data = [{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2}]
Tests:
lodash map
_.map(data, 'a')
js native map
data.map((n) => n.a)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash map
js native map
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/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=533747" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
js native map
8.9M/s
lodash map
4.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
js native map
8,903,671 Ops/sec
lodash map
4,272,572 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two approaches: using Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) for mapping an array, versus doing it natively in JavaScript without any external libraries. **Test Cases** There are only two test cases: 1. `lodash map`: This test case uses the `_map` function from Lodash to transform the `data` array by extracting the value of the `'a'` property. 2. `js native map`: This test case uses a native JavaScript approach to achieve the same result as the first test case, but without using any external libraries. **Lodash Library** In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `_map` function, which applies a given function to each element of an array and returns a new array with the results. The `_map` function is designed to be fast, efficient, and flexible, making it a popular choice for many JavaScript developers. **Native JavaScript Approach** The native JavaScript approach uses the `map()` method, which also transforms an array by applying a given function to each element. However, unlike Lodash's `_map`, this approach does not provide the same level of optimization or caching, which can lead to slower performance in some cases. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: Lodash (_map) vs Native JavaScript (`map()`): * **Pros:** + Lodash provides better performance and caching for repeated calls to `_map`. + It is more flexible, allowing you to pass a custom function as an argument. + It has built-in support for various array data types and edge cases. * **Cons:** + Requires including an external library (Lodash). + May be overkill for simple use cases where native JavaScript is sufficient. Native JavaScript (`map()`): * **Pros:** + Faster startup times since no external libraries are required. + More straightforward to implement and debug, as it relies on built-in methods. * **Cons:** + Less performant than Lodash's `_map` for large datasets or repeated calls. + Requires more manual error handling and edge case management. **Other Considerations** When deciding between using Lodash or implementing the native JavaScript approach, consider the following factors: * Performance requirements: If you need to handle large datasets or high-throughput data processing, Lodash's caching and optimization may be beneficial. For simpler use cases, native JavaScript might suffice. * Development time and ease of maintenance: Native JavaScript is often easier to implement and debug, but requires more manual effort for edge cases and error handling. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to consider when mapping arrays include: 1. **Array.prototype.filter()`: Can be used in conjunction with Array.prototype.map() or Array.prototype.reduce() to filter and transform arrays. 2. **ES6/ES7+ features**: The `map()` method, `filter()`, and `reduce()` methods are part of the modern JavaScript standard library and provide efficient array transformations without relying on external libraries. In conclusion, this benchmark provides a comparison between Lodash's `_map` function and native JavaScript's `map()` method. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which solution to use based on their specific requirements and constraints.
Related benchmarks
Lodash (v4.17.15) isEqual test
indexof vs set123
index vs map111
lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmap 3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?