Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
native map vs lodash _.map
(version: 0)
aaa
Comparing performance of:
map vs _map
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var arr = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
Tests:
map
arr.map(v=>v+' hi')
_map
_.map(v=>v+' hi')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
map
_map
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and its components. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `native map` and `_lodash _.map`. The goal is to measure which approach is faster when mapping an array of strings to a new array with a custom transformation function. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Native Map**: Using the built-in `map()` method in JavaScript, which applies a given function to each element of an array and returns a new array with the results. 2. **_Lodash _.map_**: Using the `_map` function from the Lodash library, which is a utility library that provides a lot of useful functions for working with arrays. **Pros and Cons** **Native Map:** Pros: * Built-in functionality in JavaScript, so no extra dependencies are needed. * Typically faster than using an external library. * Easy to read and understand. Cons: * Requires the `map()` method to be available on the array, which may not be the case for all browsers or environments. * May have limitations on its performance compared to optimized libraries like Lodash. **_Lodash _.map_:** Pros: * Often faster than the built-in `map()` method due to optimizations in the library. * Can handle a wider range of edge cases and arrays. * Part of a larger utility library, so users may find it convenient for other tasks as well. Cons: * Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library). * May have a slightly higher overhead compared to native code. **Library: _Lodash_** _Lodash_ is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with arrays, objects, and more. The `_map` function in particular is designed to be fast and efficient while still being easy to use. Lodash is widely used and well-maintained, making it a good choice for many tasks. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require any specific knowledge of the language. However, if you're interested in learning more about the `map()` method or Lodash's `_map` function, I can provide some additional information! **Alternatives** Other alternatives to compare performance might include: * Using a different mapping library, such as Underscore.js. * Implementing a custom mapping function using native code (e.g., in a worker thread). * Comparing the performance of other array manipulation methods, like `forEach()` or `reduce()`. * Testing with a specific data structure or array size to see how performance changes. Keep in mind that measuring performance can be complex and dependent on many factors. This benchmark is just one example of how you might compare the performance of different approaches.
Related benchmarks:
lodash map vs native map with check
array.map vs _.map
lodash _.map vs native map
lodash _.map vs native map true version
Array Map Vs Lodash Map (1)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?