Benchmark: Lodash filter vs Native filter

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var a = [{name: 'a',secondName: 'b'},{name: 'f',secondName: 'b'},{name: 'u',secondName: 'b'},{name: 'p',secondName: 'b'}]

Tests:

Lodash
let b = _.filter(a, (item)=>item.name === 'u')
Native
let b = a.filter((item)=>item.name === 'u')

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 dive into explaining the benchmark test case.

**Benchmark Test Case Overview**

The provided benchmark test case compares the performance of two approaches to filter an array: using Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) and the native `filter()` method in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash Filter**: The first option uses the `_.filter()` function from the Lodash library to filter the array. This approach is known as "immediate invocation" since it's immediately called with a callback function.
2. **Native Filter**: The second option uses the native `filter()` method in JavaScript, which is also known as a "method call" since it's invoked on an instance of an object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash Filter**
	+ Pros:
		- Convenient and concise syntax
		- Built-in support for various filtering algorithms (e.g., `_.filter()`, `_._sort()`)
		- Often faster than native methods due to optimized implementation in the browser
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an external dependency on Lodash, which may be slower to load and require more memory
		- May introduce additional overhead due to the complexity of the library's implementation
* **Native Filter**
	+ Pros:
		- No dependencies or overhead from a separate library
		- Can be faster for very large arrays since it only requires a single function call
		- Often provides better performance in edge cases (e.g., array sizes close to JavaScript engine limits)
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more verbose syntax
		- May not be as convenient or readable for complex filtering scenarios

**Library Used**

The library used in this benchmark is Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for common programming tasks. In this case, the `filter()` function is used to filter the array based on a condition.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard in modern JavaScript (ES6+).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative filtering methods, here are a few options:

1. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: You can also filter an array using `reduce()` method with a callback function.
2. **Set-based filtering**: If the array contains unique elements, you can use sets to filter it more efficiently.
3. **Native array methods with Promises**: You can chain multiple array methods (e.g., `filter()`, `map()`) and wait for promises to resolve before processing the results.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as concise or readable as using a library like Lodash, but they can provide different benefits depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash filter vs Native filter (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):