Benchmark: lodash shuffle - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function shuffle(a) {
    var j, x, i;
    for (i = a.length; i; i--) {
        j = Math.floor(Math.random() * i);
        x = a[i - 1];
        a[i - 1] = a[j];
        a[j] = x;
    }
  return a
}
var all = [];
var allLength = 10000;

for(var i = 0; i < allLength; i++) {
  all[i] = i;
}

Tests:

JS
shuffle(all);
L
_.shuffle(all)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS
L

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JS	13076.4 Ops/sec
L	11139.4 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 benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a piece of JavaScript code that shuffles an array using either the built-in `shuffle` function or the `_` library's `shuffle` function from Lodash. The array to be shuffled has 10,000 elements, ranging from 0 to 9,999.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Built-in JavaScript implementation**: The `shuffle` function is implemented using a simple iterative approach that uses the Fisher-Yates shuffle algorithm.
2. **Lodash library implementation**: The `_` library's `shuffle` function provides a more robust and efficient implementation of the same algorithm.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Built-in JavaScript implementation**
	* Pros:
		+ Native performance, as it's implemented in the browser's JavaScript engine.
		+ Simple to implement and understand.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be optimized for performance or have built-in optimizations like Lodash.
2. **Lodash library implementation**
	* Pros:
		+ Well-tested and optimized by a large community of developers.
		+ Provides additional functionality, such as handling edge cases and larger arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).
		+ May introduce overhead due to the inclusion of extra code.

**Other considerations**

1. **Browser differences**: The benchmark is run on a Mac OS X system with Chrome 128, which may not be representative of other platforms or browsers.
2. **Device platform**: Running the benchmark on a desktop device may differ from running it on a mobile device.
3. **JavaScript engine optimization**: The performance difference between the two implementations might be influenced by the browser's JavaScript engine optimization techniques.

**Library and its purpose**

The `_` library is a utility belt for functional programming in JavaScript, providing a collection of helper functions that make common tasks easier. In this case, the `shuffle` function from Lodash is used to shuffle an array, which would otherwise require more code and complexity to implement manually.

**Special JS feature or syntax (none)**

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

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to shuffling arrays could include:

1. **Using a third-party library**: There are many other libraries available that provide efficient array shuffling algorithms, such as `array-shuffle` or `random-array`.
2. **Implementing the shuffle algorithm manually**: A developer could write their own custom implementation of the Fisher-Yates shuffle algorithm to compare with the built-in JavaScript and Lodash implementations.
3. **Using a different data structure**: If possible, using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a tree, might provide more efficient shuffling algorithms.

Related benchmarks:

lodash shuffle (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS vs L

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS

L

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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