Benchmark: Check speed of lodash sort vs js sort

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 51; i++){
  arr.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

Tests:

lodash
_.sortBy(arr,"value");
sort
arr.sort((a, b) => { if (a < b) { return -1; } else if (a > b) { return 1; } return 0; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
sort

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the speed of two JavaScript functions: `lodash.sortBy` and the built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method. The test case creates an array of 51 objects with random values and sorts them using both methods.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash sort**: Uses the `_.sortBy` function from the Lodash library, which provides a stable sorting algorithm that can be used to sort arrays in ascending or descending order.
2. **Built-in Sort**: Uses the built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method, which is a standard JavaScript function that sorts arrays in place.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash sort**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a stable sorting algorithm, which ensures that equal elements maintain their original order.
		+ Can be used to sort arrays in both ascending and descending order.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library (Lodash), which may introduce dependencies and overhead.
		+ May have slower performance compared to the built-in sort method due to the additional indirection.
2. **Built-in Sort**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional libraries or dependencies are required.
		+ Typically has faster performance since it's a standard JavaScript function.
	* Cons:
		+ Unstable sorting algorithm, which means equal elements may not maintain their original order.
		+ Limited to ascending and descending sort orders.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and object manipulation. The `_.sortBy` function is part of the Lodash library's "Functional" module, which provides functional programming utilities like sorting and mapping.

**Special JS Feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's standard to JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

* **Array Length**: The benchmark creates an array of 51 elements, which is a relatively small size. In practice, larger arrays may lead to different results due to caching and optimization effects.
* **Random Data Generation**: The `getRandomInt` function generates random values for the array elements. This may not accurately represent real-world data generation scenarios, but it's sufficient for this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you were to modify or expand on this benchmark, some alternatives could include:

1. Comparing other sorting algorithms from different libraries (e.g., Quine McLague Sort, Cocktail Sort).
2. Using larger array sizes to test performance at scale.
3. Incorporating more realistic data generation techniques.
4. Adding additional test cases for edge cases, such as sorting empty arrays or arrays with duplicate elements.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Check speed of lodash sort vs js sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs sort

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

sort

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):