Benchmark: _.difference vs Set

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var longArray = []
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  longArray.push(i)
}
longArray = _.shuffle(longArray)

var shortArray = []
for (let i = 500; i < 1001; i++) {
  shortArray.push(i)
}
shortArray = _.shuffle(shortArray)

Tests:

lodash
_.difference(shortArray, longArray)
Set
var set = new Set(longArray) for (let i in shortArray) { if (!set.has(i)) { break } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
Set

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Context**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using Lodash's `_.difference` function and creating a custom Set from scratch. The test case uses two arrays: `longArray` (1000 elements) and `shortArray` (500-1001 elements), both shuffled to ensure randomness.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

### 1. Lodash's _.difference

* Benchmark Definition: `_.difference(shortArray, longArray)`
* Description: Uses Lodash's `difference` function to find the difference between `shortArray` and `longArray`.

### 2. Custom Set implementation

* Benchmark Definition: `var set = new Set(longArray); for (let i in shortArray) { if (!set.has(i)) { break; } }`
* Description: Creates a custom Set from `longArray` and then iterates over `shortArray`, checking if each element is not present in the Set.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

1. Lodash's _.difference: A well-tested, optimized function that uses an internal array-based algorithm to find the difference.
2. Custom Set implementation: A simple, hand-rolled approach using a Set data structure to keep track of unique elements.

**Pros and Cons**

### 1. Lodash's _.difference

Pros:

* Optimized for performance
* Well-tested and reliable
* Reduces code duplication by using an established library function

Cons:

* Requires including the Lodash library, which may add overhead
* May not be suitable for smaller projects where size matters

### 2. Custom Set implementation

Pros:

* No external dependencies or overhead
* Simple to understand and implement
* Can be optimized further if needed

Cons:

* More code duplication compared to using _.difference
* Requires manual handling of edge cases (e.g., empty arrays, null/undefined values)

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library providing various utility functions. In this case, the `_.difference` function is used to find the difference between two arrays.

The library's presence adds some overhead due to the inclusion of additional code and dependencies. However, using an established library like Lodash can also reduce development time and ensure consistency across projects.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax highlighted in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two approaches rather than showcasing advanced language constructs.

Overall, the benchmark provides a useful comparison between using an optimized library function (Lodash's _.difference) and implementing a custom solution. This helps developers understand the trade-offs involved when choosing between these approaches, depending on their specific needs and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

_.difference vs Set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs Set

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

Set

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):