Benchmark: Lodash difference vs Some & Filter

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = [];
for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  arr1.push('' + i);
}

var arr2 = [];
for(let i = 49; i >= 0; i--) {
  arr2.push('' + i);
}

Tests:

Lodash
const notInArr1 = _.difference(arr2, arr1) const notInArr2 = _.difference(arr1, arr2)
Set & Filter
const notInArr1 = arr2.filter(value => !arr1.some(v => v === value)); const notInArr2 = arr1.filter(value => !arr2.some(v => v === value));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Set & Filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month 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 Edg/134.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	7723.7 Ops/sec
Set & Filter	13989.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

### Overview of the Benchmark

This benchmark compares two methods for finding the difference between two arrays in JavaScript. The primary focus is on evaluating the performance of using the Lodash library versus native JavaScript approaches with array methods like `filter` and `some`.

### Benchmark Options Compared

1. **Lodash Library**:
   - **Test Case**: 
     ```javascript
     const notInArr1 = _.difference(arr2, arr1);
     const notInArr2 = _.difference(arr1, arr2);
     ```
   - **Description**: This approach uses Lodash’s `_.difference` function, which takes two arrays as arguments and returns a new array containing elements from the first array that are not present in the second array. This is done for both directions (i.e., `arr2` against `arr1` and `arr1` against `arr2`).

2. **JavaScript's Native Array Methods**:
   - **Test Case**: 
     ```javascript
     const notInArr1 = arr2.filter(value => !arr1.some(v => v === value));
     const notInArr2 = arr1.filter(value => !arr2.some(v => v === value));
     ```
   - **Description**: This method uses the native `filter` function in conjunction with `some`. For each element in one array, it filters out elements that exist in the other array by checking with `some` to see if they are present.

### Pros and Cons

1. **Lodash**:
   - **Pros**:
     - **Ease of Use**: The `_.difference` function is straightforward and concise, making code easier to read and maintain.
     - **Performance Optimizations**: Lodash is optimized for performance and can handle edge cases effectively.
   - **Cons**:
     - **Library Overhead**: Including Lodash adds additional weight to your project, which may not be ideal for performance-sensitive applications, especially if only a single function is needed.
     - **Dependency Management**: Relying on external libraries can lead to dependency conflicts and issues with version updates.

2. **Native JavaScript Methods**:
   - **Pros**:
     - **No External Dependencies**: Using native methods means there's no need to include an external library, keeping the bundle size smaller.
     - **Flexibility**: It can be easier to tweak and modify native JavaScript code to fit specific requirements since you're not constrained by a library’s API.
   - **Cons**:
     - **Verbosity**: The native approach uses more lines of code and can be less readable at first glance compared to the concise Lodash syntax.
     - **Potential Performance Issues**: Although native methods are very fast, their performance can vary based on data structures and sizes; in case of very large arrays, using `some` within a loop could degrade performance compared to optimized library functions.

### Additional Considerations

- **Performance Results**: The benchmark results indicate that the **Set & Filter** approach (native JavaScript) performed better, with over 13,000 executions per second compared to around 7,700 for Lodash. This suggests that, at least for this particular case and dataset size, the native solution was more performant.
- **Dataset Size**: The size of the arrays used in this benchmark is crucial. For larger datasets, different approaches may yield differing performance metrics. 
- **Readability vs. Performance**: While performance is a significant consideration, code maintainability and readability should not be overlooked—especially in collaborative environments or long-term projects.

### Alternatives

- **Using Sets**: An alternative approach could involve using `Set`, which can provide an efficient way to check for the existence of items. For example, you could convert one array into a set and then filter the other array based on membership in that set:
  ```javascript
  const set1 = new Set(arr1);
  const notInArr1 = arr2.filter(value => !set1.has(value));
  ```
  This method may yield better performance for large datasets since checking for existence in a Set is generally faster than using `some`.

- **Custom Implementation**: Depending on specific needs or constraints, engineers could also implement their own logic tailored for particular use cases, potentially optimizing for specific data shapes or access patterns.

In summary, this benchmark provides valuable insights into the performance implications of using a library versus relying on native capabilities in JavaScript for array manipulation tasks, along with considerations relevant for making informed choices in software development.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash difference vs Some & Filter (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Set & Filter

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Set & Filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):