Benchmark: Lodash vs Native reduce on object - updated 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.10/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 10; i < len; i++) {
  var arr = []
  obj['key' + i] = arr
  for (var n = 0, len = 10; n < len; n++) {
    arr.push({ ['key' + n]: n });
  }
}

Tests:

Lodash
_.reduce(obj, (acc, val, key) => { acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val })); return acc; }, {})
Native
Object.entries(obj).reduce((acc, [key, val]) => { acc[key] = val.map(d => ({ label: key, value: val })); return acc; }, {})

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:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to reduce an object in JavaScript:

1. Using Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) with its `reduce` method.
2. The native JavaScript `reduce` method (i.e., built-in and not requiring any external libraries).

**Options Compared:**

* **Lodash:** Uses the `reduce` method from Lodash to iterate over the object entries, performing a transformation on each value and accumulating the results in an accumulator object.
* **Native JavaScript:** Utilizes the native `reduce` method (available since ECMAScript 2015) to reduce the object entries, achieving similar transformations as the Lodash implementation.

**Pros and Cons:**

### Lodash:

Pros:
	+ Wide adoption and familiarity among developers due to its extensive library of utility functions.
	+ Often easier to understand and write for developers already familiar with the library.
	+ Can provide a more readable and maintainable codebase.

Cons:
	+ Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library) to the benchmark, potentially affecting performance in non-optimized environments.
	+ May incur overhead due to the loading of the library and potential caching issues.

### Native JavaScript:

Pros:
	+ No additional dependencies or overhead, providing a pure JavaScript implementation.
	+ More control over optimization strategies and caching mechanisms.
	+ Typically faster execution due to its native nature.

Cons:
	+ Requires a deeper understanding of the native `reduce` method and its behavior.
	+ May be less readable for developers unfamiliar with the built-in functionality.

**Library (Lodash) Purpose:**
The Lodash library provides a comprehensive collection of utility functions, including `reduce`, that can simplify code and improve performance. In this benchmark, it is used to demonstrate the efficiency of the native JavaScript implementation by providing an alternative approach.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases.

**Other Alternatives:**

* For a pure JavaScript implementation without relying on external libraries, you can explore other utility libraries like Ramda.js or Underscore.js.
* If looking for built-in alternatives to Lodash, consider using the `Array.prototype.map` and `Object.entries()` methods, as shown in the individual test cases.

When considering these alternatives, keep in mind factors such as library size, performance overhead, code readability, and your specific use case requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Native reduce on object - updated 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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