Benchmark: Native vs Lodash.js map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
var array2 = arr2.map(function (value, index) { return value * 2 })
lodash
var array2 = _.map(arr2, function (value, index) { return value * 2 })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
lodash

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Native**: Using the built-in `map` function of JavaScript arrays, which is native to the language.
2. **Lodash.js map**: Using the `_.map` function from the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Options being compared**

* The size of the input array: three different sizes (100,000, 10,000,000, and 100,000,000) are used to test performance at different scales.
* The number of executions per second is measured for each approach.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native (Built-in `map` function)**

Pros:

* Native implementation means it's typically faster and more efficient, since it's implemented in the browser's JavaScript engine.
* No dependencies or overhead from an external library.

Cons:

* Limited functionality compared to Lodash.js map, which provides a broader range of features and options.
* May not handle edge cases or complex transformations as well as Lodash.js map.

**Lodash.js map**

Pros:

* Provides a wide range of features and options for data transformation, filtering, and manipulation.
* Can handle more complex transformations and edge cases than the built-in `map` function.

Cons:

* Requires an external library dependency, which can introduce overhead and slow down page loads.
* May be slower than the native implementation due to the added complexity.

**Library used: Lodash.js**

Lodash.js is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for common tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_.map` function is part of this library and allows for concise and expressive data transformation.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There isn't any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. The focus is on comparing the performance of native `map` function versus Lodash.js map.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries to Lodash.js, some popular options include:

* Ramda: a functional programming library that provides a different set of functions and data structures.
* Underscore.js: another utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.js.
* Immer: a small and lightweight library for immutable data structures.

Keep in mind that the choice of library depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Native vs Lodash.js map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs lodash

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

lodash

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):