Benchmark: native reduce vs loadash reduce

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var testData = {
  "100": "100",
  "102": "102",
  "103": "103",
  "000": "000",
  "001": "001",
  "002": "002",
}

Tests:

Native reduce
Object.keys(testData).sort().reduce( (result, key) => { result[key] = testData[key]; return result; }, {})
Loadash reduce
_.reduce(Object.keys(testData).sort(), (acc, key) => { if(!acc[key]) acc[key] = key; return acc }, {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native reduce
Loadash reduce

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 JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Native Reduce**: This test case measures the performance of JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, specifically when sorting an array and reducing it to a new object.
2. **Loadash Reduce**: This test case measures the performance of Lodash's `_reduce()` function, which is similar to the native `Array.prototype.reduce()` method but provides additional features like handling partial reductions.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

* Native JavaScript implementation (`Array.prototype.reduce()`)
* External library implementation (Lodash's `_reduce()` function)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native JavaScript Implementation

Pros:

* Built-in, no dependency on external libraries
* Generally faster and more efficient since it doesn't incur the overhead of loading an external library
* Can take advantage of browser optimizations and caching

Cons:

* May not provide features like partial reductions or more advanced data transformation options
* Requires manual implementation of sorting and indexing logic

### Lodash's `_reduce()` Function

Pros:

* Provides additional features like partial reductions, mapping, and more
* Often provides a simpler and more readable API for common data transformations
* Can be used in a variety of contexts where native `Array.prototype.reduce()` may not be suitable

Cons:

* Requires loading an external library (Lodash)
* May incur additional overhead due to the size and complexity of the library

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like data transformation, filtering, mapping, and more. Its `_reduce()` function is designed to be more flexible and powerful than native `Array.prototype.reduce()`, but may come with a performance cost.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both test cases rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were looking for alternatives to Lodash's `_reduce()` function, some options might include:

* Underscore.js (another popular utility library that provides a similar `_reduce()` function)
* jQuery (although its reducing functionality is often less flexible and powerful than Lodash's)
* Vanilla JavaScript implementation using `Array.prototype.reduce()`

Keep in mind that these alternatives may offer different trade-offs between performance, flexibility, and code size.

Related benchmarks:

native reduce vs loadash reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native reduce vs Loadash reduce

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native reduce

Loadash reduce

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):