Benchmark: Chunk - lodash vs javascripto

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var values = new Array(200 * 200 * 4)

Tests:

lodash
var chunks = _.chunk(values, 4)
native
const chunkfunction = (arr, chunkSize = 1, cache = []) => { const tmp = [...arr] if (chunkSize <= 0) return cache while (tmp.length) cache.push(tmp.splice(0, chunkSize)) return cache } var chunks = chunkfunction(values, 4)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	1116.2 Ops/sec
native	4.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to chunking (dividing) an array of values into smaller chunks:

1. **Lodash**: The `lodash` approach uses the `chunk()` function from the Lodash library, which takes an array and a chunk size as input and returns an array of subarrays.
2. **Native JavaScript**: The "native" approach implements its own custom `chunk()` function using a recursive loop that pushes chunks to a cache.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared in terms of performance (measured by executions per second). This benchmark tests the speed of each approach for chunking an array of 200,000 elements with a chunk size of 4.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, well-tested library, provides a simple and efficient way to perform common array operations.
	* Cons: Adds external dependency (the Lodash library), may have performance overhead due to the need to load the library.
2. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, no performance overhead from loading a library, can be optimized for specific use cases.
	* Cons: Requires manual implementation, can be error-prone and hard to maintain.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for array manipulation, string formatting, object traversal, and more. The `chunk()` function is just one example of the many useful utilities provided by Lodash.

**Test Case Explanation**

The test case uses two different approaches:

1. **Lodash**: The benchmark creates an array of 200,000 elements using the script preparation code, and then calls the `chunk()` function from Lodash to divide it into chunks of size 4.
2. **Native JavaScript**: The benchmark implements its own custom `chunk()` function using a recursive loop that pushes chunks to a cache. It uses the same input array as the Lodash example.

**Other Considerations**

This benchmark highlights the trade-offs between using established libraries (like Lodash) and implementing custom solutions in JavaScript. When to choose each approach depends on factors like performance requirements, code complexity, and development speed.

In general:

* Use well-established libraries for common tasks, especially if you're not familiar with the implementation details.
* Implement custom solutions when:
	+ You have specific performance or memory constraints.
	+ You need to optimize a critical path of your application.
	+ You want fine-grained control over the implementation.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Lodash for array manipulation include:

1. **Array.prototype.chunk()**: If you're using a modern JavaScript environment, you can use the `chunk()` method directly on arrays (although this is not a standard method).
2. **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
3. **Homebrew**: A lightweight, self-contained array manipulation library.

In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches to chunking an array: using the `chunk()` function from Lodash and implementing a custom solution in native JavaScript. The choice between these approaches depends on performance requirements, code complexity, and development speed.

Related benchmarks:

Chunk - lodash vs javascripto (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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