Benchmark: lodash split vs native split

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.14.52/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var strToSplit = "test/string/to/split/in/browser";

Tests:

native split
var splitted = strToSplit.split("/");
lodash split
var splitted = _.split(strToSplit, "/");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native split
lodash split

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native split	52172224.0 Ops/sec
lodash split	38793540.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being compared:**

Two approaches for splitting a string are being compared:

1. **Native Split**: The built-in `split()` method of the JavaScript language, which splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator.
2. **Lodash Split**: A custom implementation using the popular Lodash library, which provides a `split()` function that can be used to split a string.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Native Split:**
	+ Pros:
		- No additional dependencies are required.
		- Can be faster since it's implemented in native code.
	+ Cons:
		- May have different behavior or performance characteristics compared to custom implementations.
* **Lodash Split:**
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a consistent and predictable behavior, which can be beneficial for development and testing.
		- Often includes additional functionality, such as handling edge cases or providing more control over the splitting process.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional dependency (the Lodash library).
		- May have slower performance compared to native implementations.

**Library Used:**

The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including string manipulation, array operations, and more.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

None are mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers have adopted features like `String.prototype.split()` with an optional callback function to handle edge cases or provide additional control over the splitting process.

**Other Considerations:**

When choosing between native and custom split implementations, consider factors such as:

* Performance: Native implementations are often faster since they're implemented in native code.
* Consistency: Custom implementations may require more careful consideration of edge cases to ensure consistent behavior.
* Development complexity: Using a library like Lodash can simplify development by providing pre-built functions, but it also adds an additional dependency.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for splitting strings include:

* **Regexp**: The `RegExp` constructor or the `split()` method with a regular expression pattern can be used to split strings based on patterns.
* **String.prototype.replace()**: This method can be used in combination with a loop or a custom implementation to achieve similar results as splitting a string.

However, these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and behavior compared to native or Lodash implementations.

Related benchmarks:

lodash split vs native split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native split vs lodash split

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native split

lodash split

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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