Benchmark: Testing lodash methods

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var values = {
	name: "kiss-no"
}
var prevVal = /(-fi|-no)$/

Tests:

Native
const newObject = _.clone(values); _.each(values, (val, key) => { if (prevVal.test(val)) { newObject[key] = val.replace(prevVal, ""); } else if (typeof val === "object") { newObject[key] = replacePropertyValue(prevVal, val); } }); return newObject;
Lodash.js filter
const newObject = _.clone(values); _.each(values, (val, key) => { if (prevVal.test(val)) { newObject[key] = val.replace(prevVal, ""); } else if (typeof val === "object") { newObject[key] = replacePropertyValue(prevVal, val); } }); return newObject;

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 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Native

4.6M/s

Lodash.js filter

4.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native	4,609,700 Ops/sec
Lodash.js filter	4,500,848 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**
The test cases are designed to measure the performance of two approaches: native JavaScript implementation and Lodash.js filter.

**Lodash library**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like string manipulation, object manipulation, and more. The `_.clone()` function creates a shallow copy of an object, while `_.each()` iterates over each property of an object. In this benchmark, Lodash.js filter is used to filter out specific strings from the input data.

**Benchmarking setup**

The benchmark uses a simple JavaScript object `values` as input, containing a single property "name" with value "kiss-no". The test also includes a regular expression pattern `prevVal` that matches the string "-fi" or "-no".

**Native implementation**

The native implementation creates a new object `newObject` using `const newObject = {...}`. It then iterates over each property of the input data using `_.each()`, applying the following rules:

* If a value matches the regular expression pattern, it replaces the matched string with an empty string.
* If a value is an object, it calls another function `replacePropertyValue(prevVal, val)` to recursively process its properties.

**Lodash.js filter**

The Lodash.js filter approach uses the same input data and rules as the native implementation. However, instead of using the `_.each()` method, it employs Lodash's `filter()` function to create a new array containing only the filtered values.

**Comparison options**

There are two approaches being tested:

1. **Native JavaScript implementation**: This approach tests the performance of the native JavaScript implementation, without relying on any external libraries.
2. **Lodash.js filter**: This approach uses Lodash's `filter()` function to achieve the same filtering result as the native implementation.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript implementation:**

Pros:

* No dependency on external libraries
* May be more efficient since it doesn't involve loading additional code

Cons:

* Requires manual loop iteration, which can lead to slower performance compared to optimized library functions

**Lodash.js filter:**

Pros:

* Leverages the optimized and tested performance of Lodash's `filter()` function
* Easier to maintain and update, as the implementation is provided by the library

Cons:

* Introduces an additional dependency on the Lodash library
* May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of loading and initializing the library

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses a relatively simple input data structure, which may not accurately represent real-world scenarios.
* There are no multiple threads or concurrent executions tested, so this is a sequential benchmark.
* The benchmark only measures the execution time of the filtering operations, without considering other factors like memory usage or garbage collection overhead.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to consider:

1. **V8.js**: This is an open-source implementation of the V8 JavaScript engine, which could be used as an alternative to Lodash's `filter()` function.
2. **Array.prototype.filter()**: Using the built-in `Array.prototype.filter()` method could provide a more efficient filtering solution compared to Lodash's `filter()` function.
3. **Native Web Worker implementation**: Using native Web Workers could allow for concurrent execution of the filtering operations, potentially improving performance.

Testing lodash methods (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

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Testing lodash methods (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

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`