Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Javascript

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
arr2.map(function (element, index) { element = element*2; });
Lodash.js filter
_.map(arr2, function (element, index) { element = element*2; });

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Lodash.js filter

35/s

Native

13/s

Fastest: Lodash.js filter (2.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash.js filter: 35 ops/sec
• Native: 13 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lodash.js filter

44/s

Native

14/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash.js filter	44 Ops/sec
Native	14 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the Benchmark Definition json and explore what is tested, options compared, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided json represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches: Native (using only built-in JavaScript functions) and Lodash.js filter. The benchmark measures how long it takes to execute the `map` function on an array of increasing sizes (`arr1`, `arr2`, and `arr3`) with or without applying a transformation function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native**: Using only built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `Array.prototype.map()`, `for` loops).
2. **Lodash.js filter**: Using the popular Lodash library, which provides a convenient and efficient way to perform various operations on arrays, including mapping.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native

Pros:

* No external dependencies, making it suitable for environments where Lodash is not available.
* Can be more lightweight and efficient since no additional library is required.

Cons:

* May require more manual coding and optimization techniques to achieve optimal performance.
* Built-in JavaScript functions might have limitations or constraints that affect performance.

### Lodash.js filter

Pros:

* Provides a convenient and readable way to perform array operations, making code easier to maintain and understand.
* Often includes optimized and tested implementations of common algorithms.

Cons:

* Requires an external dependency (Lodash), which may introduce additional overhead in terms of size and complexity.
* May not be suitable for environments where Lodash is not available or has been disabled.

**Library: Lodash.js**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for working with arrays, objects, strings, numbers, etc. The `map` function in Lodash takes an array and applies a transformation function to each element, returning a new array with the transformed elements.

In this benchmark, Lodash.js filter uses the `_` alias for Lodash's global namespace, and the `map` function is used to transform the `arr2` array by multiplying each element by 2.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark. The tests use standard JavaScript functions and constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider:

1. **V8's built-in `map` function**: Some implementations of the V8 JavaScript engine (e.g., Google Chrome) have a faster `map` function built into their interpreter.
2. **C++-based libraries**: Libraries like V8 or SpiderMonkey provide highly optimized and efficient array operations that might outperform JavaScript-based approaches.
3. **Other Lodash alternatives**: Depending on the specific use case, alternative libraries like Ramda or Underscore.js might be suitable.

Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Lodash.js vs Javascript (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Lodash.js filter`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Lodash.js vs Javascript (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Lodash.js filter`