Benchmark: Lodash reduce vs native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var nbLength = 100000000 //100M
var numbers = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= nbLength; i++) { numbers.push(i); }

Tests:

Native reduce
numbers.reduce((sum, n) => sum + n, 0)
Lodash reduce
_.reduce(numbers, (sum, n) => sum + n, 0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native reduce
Lodash reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 20 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:152.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/152.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 152 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Lodash reduce

2/s

Native reduce

2/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash reduce	2 Ops/sec
✓ Native reduce	2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to perform a reduction operation on an array: the native JavaScript `reduce` function and the Lodash `reduce` function.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Native JavaScript `reduce` function**: This is a built-in function in JavaScript that applies a specified reduction function to each element of an array, accumulating a single value.
2. **Lodash `reduce` function**: This is a utility function provided by the Lodash library that performs the same operation as the native `reduce` function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native JavaScript `reduce` function**:
	+ Pros: Built-in, efficient, and lightweight.
	+ Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable as alternative implementations, especially for complex operations.
* **Lodash `reduce` function**:
	+ Pros: Well-documented, tested, and widely adopted. Provides additional features and options that may improve readability and maintainability.
	+ Cons: Requires an external library, which adds overhead. May not be suitable for all use cases or environments.

**Other considerations**

* **Library usage**: The test uses the Lodash library to provide the `reduce` function implementation. While this is a common approach in web development, it may not be suitable for all projects or environments where an external dependency is not desired.
* **Special JS feature or syntax**: Neither of the compared implementations utilizes any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you prefer to implement your own reduction operation without relying on a library, you can use the following alternatives:

1. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This is the same function as the native `reduce` function in JavaScript.
2. **Manual iteration**: You can write a simple loop to iterate over the array and accumulate the results manually.

Here's an example implementation using manual iteration:
```javascript
const numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
let sum = 0;

for (const num of numbers) {
  sum += num;
}

console.log(sum); // Output: 15
```
This approach is more verbose and less efficient than using the native `reduce` function or a library like Lodash.

Lodash reduce vs native (version: 0)

This test aims to compare lodash reduce function with the Javascript native reduce function, doing exactly the same operation

Comparing performance of: `Native reduce vs Lodash reduce`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Native reduce

Lodash reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Lodash reduce vs native (version: 0)

This test aims to compare lodash reduce function with the Javascript native reduce function, doing exactly the same operation

Comparing performance of: Native reduce vs Lodash reduce

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Native reduce

Lodash reduce

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: `Native reduce vs Lodash reduce`