Benchmark: Filter-Map: Lodash vs Native, simple

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Native filter-map
data.map((d) => d.mapping)
Lodash filter-map
_.map(data, (d) => d.mapping)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter-map
Lodash filter-map

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.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test between two approaches: using Lodash (a popular utility library for JavaScript) and implementing a filter-map operation natively, without relying on any external libraries. The goal is to compare their performance in executing the `data.map((d) => d.mapping)` expression.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash Filter-Map**: Lodash provides a `map` function that applies a transformation to each element of an array. In this test, it's used with a lambda expression to extract the `mapping` property from each object in the `data` array.
2. **Native Filter-Map**: This approach involves implementing a custom filter-map operation without relying on any external libraries or functions like `map`.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash Filter-Map:**

Pros:

* Easier to implement, as it leverages an existing library with optimized performance.
* Less code to write, reducing the likelihood of introducing bugs.

Cons:

* Requires including an additional dependency (Lodash), which might slow down page loads or increase payload size.
* Might incur a slight overhead due to the need to load and execute the Lodash library.

**Native Filter-Map:**

Pros:

* No dependencies or libraries involved, reducing the risk of performance overhead or additional payload.
* Can provide direct insights into the native engine's performance capabilities.

Cons:

* Requires more code to implement, which increases the likelihood of introducing bugs or performance regressions.
* Might not be as efficient as using an optimized library like Lodash.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions and methods for common tasks, such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this test, it's used to provide the `map` function implementation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code generates an array of 1,000,000 objects with a single property (`filtering`) set to `true` and another property (`mapping`) set to a constant value (42).

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches or variations on this benchmark, here are some ideas:

* Compare using different JavaScript versions (e.g., ES5, ES6, ES7) or engine implementations (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey).
* Introduce additional complexities, such as sorting the data array before filtering and mapping.
* Experiment with different input datasets or distributions to simulate real-world scenarios.
* Implement other utility libraries like `underscore` or `moment.js` to compare their performance.

These variations can help you better understand how different approaches perform under various conditions and provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript's strengths and weaknesses.

Related benchmarks:

Filter-Map: Lodash vs Native, simple (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter-map vs Lodash filter-map

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native filter-map

Lodash filter-map

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):