Benchmark: Lodash difference vs Set & Filter

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = [];
for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  arr1.push('' + i);
}

var arr2 = [];
for(let i = 49; i >= 0; i--) {
  arr2.push('' + i);
}

Tests:

Lodash
const notInArr1 = _.difference(arr2, arr1) const notInArr2 = _.difference(arr1, arr2)
Set & Filter
const arr1Set = new Set(); const arr2Set = new Set(); arr1.forEach(value => arr1Set.add(value)); arr2.forEach(value => arr2Set.add(value)); const notInArr1 = arr2.filter(value => !arr1Set.has(value)); const notInArr2 = arr1.filter(value => !arr2Set.has(value));

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 59 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 51 runs

Set & Filter

262K/s

Lodash

41K/s

Fastest: Set & Filter (6.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Set & Filter: 261,792 ops/sec
• Lodash: 41,471 ops/sec

Firefox 8 runs

Set & Filter

152K/s

Lodash

73K/s

Fastest: Set & Filter (2.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Set & Filter: 152,310 ops/sec
• Lodash: 73,393 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
Lodash
Set & Filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Set & Filter

253K/s

Lodash

74K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Set & Filter	252,676 Ops/sec
Lodash	73,764 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, where two approaches are compared: using Lodash's `difference` method and using Sets with filtering.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two scripts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates two arrays, `arr1` and `arr2`, containing 100 and 51 elements respectively, in ascending order.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code includes a reference to the Lodash library (version 4.17.5) from a CDN.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

### 1. Lodash

The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const notInArr1 = _.difference(arr2, arr1)
const notInArr2 = _.difference(arr1, arr2)
```
This code uses the `_.difference` method from Lodash to find the elements that are in `arr2` but not in `arr1`, and vice versa.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Pros**: Using a well-maintained and widely-used library like Lodash can provide efficient and reliable results.
* **Cons**: The use of an external library may introduce additional overhead, such as memory allocation and garbage collection.

### 2. Set & Filter

The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const arr1Set = new Set()
const arr2Set = new Set()

arr1.forEach(value => arr1Set.add(value))
arr2.forEach(value => arr2Set.add(value))

const notInArr1 = arr2.filter(value => !arr1Set.has(value))
const notInArr2 = arr1.filter(value => !arr2Set.has(value))
```
This code creates two Sets, `arr1Set` and `arr2Set`, from the arrays `arr1` and `arr2`. It then uses the `filter` method to find the elements that are in one set but not the other.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Pros**: Using native JavaScript methods (Sets and filtering) can provide a lightweight and efficient solution.
* **Cons**: This approach may be slower than using Lodash's optimized implementation, especially for large datasets.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object manipulation, and string manipulation. The `difference` method is part of the Lodash library's set operations capabilities.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare these two approaches could include:

* Using native JavaScript methods, such as `Set` and `filter`, without relying on a library like Lodash.
* Using a different library, such as `Array.prototype.findIndex()` or `Array.prototype.indexOf()`, for set operations.
* Implementing the difference logic from scratch using only native JavaScript features.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Lodash difference vs Set & Filter (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Set & Filter`

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Set & Filter

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 59 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 51 runs

Firefox 8 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 difference vs Set & Filter (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Set & Filter

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Set & Filter

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 59 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 51 runs

Firefox 8 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: `Lodash vs Set & Filter`