Benchmark: _.SortBy vs Sort

HTML Preparation code:

<script>https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js</script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [
    {name: "test", age: 20},
    {name: "best", age: 30},
    {name: "blah", age: 50},
    {name: "js", age: 10},
    {name: "style", age: 29},
];

Tests:

Lodash
_.sortBy(arr, 'age');
Javascript
var sortBy = (key) => { return (a, b) => (a[key] > b[key]) ? 1 : ((b[key] > a[key]) ? -1 : 0); }; arr.sort(sortBy('age'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Javascript

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	1287940.8 Ops/sec
Javascript	6367210.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for sorting an array in JavaScript:

1. **_.sortBy(arr, 'age')**: This uses the Lodash library to sort the array by the 'age' property.
2. **`var sortBy = (key) => {\r\n  return (a, b) => (a[key] > b[key]) ? 1 : ((b[key] > a[key]) ? -1 : 0);\r\n};\r\n\r\narr.sort(sortBy('age'));`**: This is a custom implementation of the sorting function using JavaScript's built-in `sort()` method.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Lodash**: Uses the `_sortBy()` function from the Lodash library to sort the array.
* **JavaScript Custom Implementation**: Uses a custom sorting function implemented in pure JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Lodash:**

Pros:

* Leverages optimized and tested code from a reputable library (Lodash).
* Typically results in better performance due to the library's specialization in this area.

Cons:

* Adds an additional dependency to the benchmark.
* May not be as flexible or customizable as a custom implementation.

**JavaScript Custom Implementation:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies, making it more self-contained and easier to maintain.
* Can be highly customized for specific use cases.

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation of the sorting algorithm, which may lead to errors or inefficiencies if not done correctly.
* May require additional optimization or testing to achieve comparable performance to Lodash.

**Library Usage (Lodash)**

The benchmark uses the `_sortBy()` function from Lodash library. This function is designed to sort an array based on a specified key. It provides an efficient and stable way to perform sorting, which is beneficial in many cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**

This benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern language constructs like classes or modules.

**Alternative Implementations**

Other approaches for implementing the sorting function could include:

* Using a different library or framework that provides a similar sorting functionality.
* Implementing the sorting algorithm using a different data structure, such as a heap or a balanced binary search tree.
* Utilizing a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler or other performance optimization techniques to improve the custom implementation.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and considerations. The benchmark's goal is to provide a fair comparison between these two options, allowing users to determine which one better suits their needs.

Related benchmarks:

_.SortBy vs Sort (version: 0)

lodash sortby equivalent in Javascript

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Javascript

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Javascript

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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