Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 10; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 100; // 10,000,000 (10 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); }

Tests:

Native
arr2.filter(i => arr1.includes(i))
Lodash.js filter
_.intersection(arr1, arr2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

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 and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array: using native JavaScript `includes()` method vs. Lodash.js `filter()` function. The test cases are designed to measure the performance of these two methods on large arrays with different sizes (100K and 10M elements).

**Native JavaScript `includes()` Method**

This approach uses the built-in `includes()` method in JavaScript, which checks if a specified value is present in an array.

Pros:

* Fast and efficient implementation, as it's implemented in native code.
* Does not require any additional library or imports.

Cons:

* May be slower than other approaches for very large arrays, due to the overhead of searching through the entire array.
* Can be slower if the `includes()` method is not optimized for performance.

**Lodash.js `filter()` Function**

This approach uses the Lodash.js library's `filter()` function, which applies a callback function to each element in an array and returns a new array with only the elements that pass the test.

Pros:

* Can be faster than native `includes()` method for very large arrays, as it allows for more efficient iteration and filtering.
* Provides additional functionality beyond just checking presence, such as custom filtering logic.

Cons:

* Requires importing the Lodash.js library, which may introduce overhead and delay execution.
* May have additional dependencies or requirements not present in the native implementation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond), which is a common metric for measuring performance. This allows users to compare the relative speeds of different approaches.
* The benchmark uses a fixed array size, with 100K and 10M elements, to ensure consistent conditions across test runs.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The Lodash.js library is used in one of the test cases (`_.intersection(arr1, arr2)`). Lodash.js provides a collection of functional programming helpers, including filtering functions like `filter()`. This library can simplify code and improve performance for certain use cases, but may also introduce additional dependencies and overhead.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of native JavaScript vs. Lodash.js implementation for a specific problem domain (array filtering).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare the `includes()` method and `filter()` function could be:

* Other array filtering libraries, such as Array.prototype.filter() with custom implementations.
* Different data structures, like linked lists or trees, for testing filtering performance.
* Using a different programming language or framework for comparison.

These alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the new approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

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):