Benchmark: 4Lodash.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 = 100; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 1000; // 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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures two approaches to filter an array for elements that exist in another array: native (JavaScript built-in function) and Lodash.js (a popular JavaScript utility library).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Native**: Using the `includes` method on the second array (`arr2`) to check if each element of the first array (`arr1`) exists in `arr2`. This is a built-in JavaScript function that checks for membership in an array.
2. **Lodash.js filter**: Using the `_.intersection` function from Lodash.js library, which filters an array by checking if elements exist in another array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native Approach**
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in JavaScript function, so no additional dependencies.
		- Fast execution, as it's implemented in native code.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as readable or maintainable as the Lodash.js version.
		- Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of dynamic lookup.
* **Lodash.js Filter Approach**
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and maintainable, as it's a well-known utility function with clear intent.
		- Often faster than native approach for large arrays, since Lodash.js is optimized for performance.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires the Lodash.js library to be included in the test environment.
		- May have overhead due to external dependency.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses the Lodash.js library, which provides a set of utility functions that can simplify common tasks. In this case, `_.intersection` is used to find elements that exist in both arrays. The syntax for using Lodash.js is straightforward: `_.intersection(arr1, arr2)`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, other than the built-in `includes` method on arrays.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to filter arrays, consider the following:

* Using `Set` data structure: Create a Set from one of the arrays and then iterate over the other array, checking if each element exists in the Set.
* Using `Map`: Similar to using a Set, but with additional capabilities like preserving key-value pairs.
* Implementing your own custom filtering function: You could write a simple function that iterates over the second array and checks for membership in the first array.

These alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

4Lodash.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):