Benchmark: lodash / native filter with includes

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/3.10.1/lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

const inc = [1,2];
const arr = [];
for(let i=0; i < 1000; i++){
  arr.push({ id: _.random(0, 5) });
}
function Arr(){
  return arr;
}
function Inc(){
  return inc;
}

Tests:

lodash
_.filter(Arr(), elem => Inc().includes(elem.id))
native
Arr().filter(elem => Inc().includes(elem.id))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

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 benchmarking data and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to filter an array:

1. Using the `lodash` library's `filter()` method with a callback function that includes another function (`inc`) returned by `Includes()`.
2. Implementing the filtering logic natively (i.e., without using any external libraries).

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash native filter with includes**: This approach uses the popular `lodash` library to perform the filtering. The callback function passed to `filter()` uses the `Includes()` method of the `inc` array to determine whether each element in the input array should be included.
2. **Native filter**: This approach requires implementing the filtering logic directly without relying on any external libraries. It uses a similar approach as the Lodash example but is written natively.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash native filter with includes**
	* Pros:
		+ Leverages the optimized performance of the `lodash` library.
		+ Reduces code maintenance, as it's easier to reuse existing functionality from a well-maintained library.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds external dependency (the `lodash` library).
		+ May introduce overhead due to the need to load and initialize an additional library.
2. **Native filter**
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies, reducing overhead and potential issues with versioning or updates.
		+ Can be more performant since it bypasses any unnecessary library overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual implementation of the filtering logic, which can lead to code duplication or errors.

**Library**

In this case, the `lodash` library is used for its `filter()` method and `Includes()` function. The purpose of `includes()` is to check whether a value exists within another array.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being utilized in these benchmarks.

**Other alternatives**

If you were considering alternative approaches, some options might include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.filter()`, which would eliminate the need for the `includes()` function and simplify the native filtering logic.
2. Implementing a custom filtering algorithm using bitwise operations or other optimized techniques.
3. Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `Set` or `Map` data structures to improve performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different trade-offs in terms of readability, maintainability, or performance compared to the Lodash native filter with includes and native filter approaches.

Related benchmarks:

lodash / native filter with includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

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):