Benchmark: Lodash filter vs native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = [...new Array(100000)]
    .map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 1000));

Tests:

Filter
var low = data.filter(d => d < 500); var high = data.filter(d => d >= 500);
lodash
var low = _.filter(data, d => d < 500); var high = _.filter(data, d => d >= 500);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter
lodash

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches for filtering an array in JavaScript: using the native `Array.prototype.filter()` method and using the popular utility library Lodash.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of 100,000 random integers between 0 and 1000. This array is used as input for the filter operations.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the Lodash JavaScript file (version 4.17.5) from a CDN, which makes Lodash available for use in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Native Filter**: This test case uses the native `Array.prototype.filter()` method to filter the array and extract values less than 500.
2. **Lodash Filter**: This test case uses Lodash's `filter()` function to achieve the same result as the native filter.

**Comparison of Options**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

**Native Filter (Array.prototype.filter())**

Pros:

* No external dependencies or library overhead
* Built-in JavaScript method, so no additional setup required
* Fast and lightweight

Cons:

* May not be as readable or maintainable for complex filtering scenarios due to the callback function syntax
* Limited support for filtering based on multiple conditions

**Lodash Filter (_.filter())**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code structure using Lodash's functional programming style
* Supports filtering based on multiple conditions using functions like `_.gt()` and `_._lt()`
* Easier to maintain and debug due to the explicit function signature

Cons:

* External dependency on Lodash library, which adds overhead and may not be suitable for all projects
* May have slightly higher performance overhead compared to the native filter approach

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Project requirements: If you need to perform complex filtering with multiple conditions or require a high degree of readability, Lodash might be a better choice. For simple filtering scenarios with no external dependencies required, the native `Array.prototype.filter()` method is likely sufficient.
* Performance: Both approaches should yield similar performance results for small to medium-sized arrays. However, as the array size increases, the native filter may have an edge due to its lack of overhead.

**Lodash Library**

The Lodash library provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for JavaScript developers, including filtering, mapping, reducing, and more. The `filter()` function is one of the most commonly used methods in Lodash, offering a concise and expressive way to filter arrays based on various conditions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested or compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash filter vs native (version: 0)

Lodash filter vs native

Comparing performance of: Filter vs lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter

lodash

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):