Benchmark: Test on isEqual performance with array of objects

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

window.foo = [{id:'cat'}, {id:'dog'}, {id:'bird'}];
window.bar = [{id:'cat'}, {id:'dog'}, {id:'bird'}];

Tests:

isEqual
_.isEqual(window.foo, window.bar)
Stringify
JSON.stringify(window.foo) === JSON.stringify(window.bar);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
isEqual
Stringify

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 the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to compare the equality of two arrays of objects: using the `lodash.isEqual` function and by stringifying both arrays and comparing their JSON representations.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Lodash's isEqual function**: This is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for data manipulation, validation, and more. In this case, it's used to compare the equality of two arrays of objects.
2. **String comparison by JSON.stringify**: This approach involves serializing both arrays into JSON strings and then comparing these strings using the `===` operator.

**Pros and Cons**

### Lodash's isEqual function

Pros:

* More expressive and flexible for complex data structures
* Can handle edge cases, such as nested objects or arrays with different lengths
* Often faster than string comparison for large datasets

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency (Lodash)
* May have a higher overhead due to the additional library logic
* Can be slower if not optimized correctly

### String comparison by JSON.stringify

Pros:

* Lightweight and fast, as it only requires serializing and comparing strings
* No dependencies or overhead from external libraries
* Suitable for small datasets or performance-critical code

Cons:

* May not handle edge cases well (e.g., nested objects or arrays with different lengths)
* Requires more manual effort to implement correctly
* Can be slower for large datasets due to string comparison overhead

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides over 120 functions for data manipulation, validation, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash.isEqual` is used to compare the equality of two arrays of objects. Other notable functions from Lodash included in MeasureThat.net include `_isEqual`, `_equalBy`, and `_merge`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Other Alternatives**

For comparing array equality, other approaches could be:

* Using `Array.prototype.every` and `Array.prototype.some`
* Implementing a custom recursive function to compare elements
* Utilizing a library like Ramda or Immutable.js

However, for small datasets or performance-critical code, the simple string comparison approach might still be suitable.

In summary, MeasureThat.net's benchmark provides a useful insight into the performance differences between two approaches to comparing array equality in JavaScript. The choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements, with Lodash's `isEqual` function providing more expressiveness but potentially higher overhead, and string comparison by JSON.stringify offering a lightweight and fast solution for small datasets or performance-critical code.

Related benchmarks:

Test on isEqual performance with array of objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: isEqual vs Stringify

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

isEqual

Stringify

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):