Benchmark: Lodash sortBy vs orderBy 22

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){
  arr.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

Tests:

_.sortBy
_.sortBy(arr,"value");
_.orderBy
_.orderBy(arr,"value");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.sortBy
_.orderBy

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!

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different sorting functions from the Lodash library: `_.sortBy` and `_.orderBy`. These functions are used to sort an array in a specific order.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of `_.sortBy` and `_.orderBy`. The main difference between these two functions is how they handle duplicate values:

* `_.sortBy`: By default, this function sorts the array based on the first property of each object that has a value. If there are multiple properties with the same value, it will use the second property, and so on.
* `_.orderBy`: This function sorts the array based on the specified property (in this case, `"value"`). It uses a stable sort algorithm, which means that if two objects have the same value for the specified property, their original order is preserved.

**Pros and Cons:**

Both functions have their advantages:

* `_.sortBy`:
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle complex sorting scenarios with multiple properties.
		- More flexible when dealing with duplicate values.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than `_.orderBy` for simple sorting tasks, as it needs to iterate over the entire array to find the correct property order.
* `_.orderBy`:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster for simple sorting tasks, as it only relies on a single property.
		- More straightforward and easier to understand for simple use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for complex sorting scenarios with multiple properties.

**Library usage:**

The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:

* Array manipulation
* String manipulation
* Object manipulation
* Functional programming

In this case, the `_.sortBy` and `_.orderBy` functions are part of the array manipulation module.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript features such as arrays, loops, and random number generation.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to sort an array in JavaScript, there are other libraries and built-in functions available:

* Built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method: This is a standard JavaScript method that sorts an array in place. It has a time complexity of O(n log n) for large arrays.
* Other library options like `lodash-es`, `underscore.js`, or custom sorting implementations.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two sorting functions from the Lodash library: `_.sortBy` and `_.orderBy`. The main difference between these functions is how they handle duplicate values. While both have their pros and cons, `_.orderBy` might be a better choice for simple sorting tasks, while `_.sortBy` is more suitable for complex scenarios with multiple properties.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash sortBy vs orderBy 22 (version: 0)

Lodash sortBy vs orderBy

Comparing performance of: _.sortBy vs _.orderBy

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.sortBy

_.orderBy

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):