Benchmark: lodash v native filter

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

lodash filter
_.filter(data, 'filtering')
native filter
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash filter
native filter

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 is comparing two approaches:

1. **Lodash Filter**: `_.filter(data, 'filtering')`
2. **Native Filter**: `data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering)`

Both tests are trying to measure the performance of filtering a large array (`data`) that contains 1 million elements.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the speed of two different approaches:

* Lodash's `filter` function with a callback that checks for the presence of `filtering` in each object.
* The native `filter` method on the `Array` prototype, which uses a similar approach to filter elements based on a predicate function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash Filter**: Pros:
	+ Easier to read and maintain due to the use of Lodash's concise syntax.
	+ May be more efficient in terms of memory usage since it doesn't require creating an array of booleans.
* Cons:
	+ May introduce overhead due to the need for a separate library.
	+ Might not be as optimized as native JavaScript code.
* **Native Filter**: Pros:
	+ Native performance, which can lead to better results on supported browsers.
	+ No additional libraries or dependencies are required.
* Cons:
	+ Requires explicit function creation and usage of `Array.prototype.filter()`, which can make the code harder to read.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a set of functional programming helpers, including filtering functions. The `_.filter` method is one such helper that allows you to filter arrays based on conditions specified as callback functions.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.filter` function is used with a simple callback that checks for the presence of `filtering` in each object. This approach allows for concise and expressive code but might not be as optimized as native JavaScript code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested here, just standard JavaScript array filtering methods.

Now, let's discuss other alternatives:

* **Other Filtering Methods**: Other approaches to filtering arrays include using `Array.prototype.forEach()` with a callback function that pushes elements into a new array, or using `Array.prototype.map()` followed by `Array.prototype.filter()`. These methods might not be as efficient as the native `filter` method but can provide similar results.
* **Using Map Reduce**: Another approach would be to use `map` and `reduce` functions to filter and process arrays. This would require more code and potentially slower performance compared to native `filter`.
* **Third-Party Libraries**: Besides Lodash, there are other filtering libraries available, such as Underscore.js or Moment.js, which provide similar functionality but might introduce additional dependencies.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, personal preference, and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash v native filter (version: 0)

check lodash and native filter speeds

Comparing performance of: lodash filter vs native filter

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash filter

native filter

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):