Benchmark: Native map vs Lodash map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

 var arr = [1,2,3,4,5];


 var addOne = (el) => el + 1

Tests:

Lodash map
_.map(arr, addOne)
Native map
arr.map(addOne)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Lodash map

69.2M/s

Native map

22.2M/s

Fastest: Lodash map (3.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash map: 69,220,632 ops/sec
• Native map: 22,156,124 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash map
Native map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/149.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lodash map

58.9M/s

Native map

16.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash map	58,878,776 Ops/sec
Native map	15,967,735 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 JSON and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **Native map**: Using the built-in `map()` function in JavaScript.
2. **Lodash map**: Using the `map()` function from the Lodash library.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

* Native map (built-in JavaScript function)
* Lodash map (using a third-party library)

**Pros and Cons**

### Native Map

Pros:

* Built-in functionality, likely to be optimized for performance
* Simple and straightforward implementation
* No dependencies on external libraries

Cons:

* May have limitations or quirks due to its built-in nature
* Performance might vary across different browsers or environments

### Lodash Map

Pros:

* Optimized by a community of developers who contributed to the library
* Provides more features and flexibility than native map
* Can be used in a wider range of projects and applications

Cons:

* External dependency, which may introduce overhead or compatibility issues
* May require additional setup or configuration

**Library - Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to provide the `map()` function implementation. The use of an external library can introduce additional dependencies and potential issues, but it also brings in optimized performance and additional features.

**Special JS Feature - Arrow Functions**

The provided JSON uses arrow functions (e.g., `(el) => el + 1`) for both native map and Lodash map. Arrow functions are a concise syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015, allowing for simpler function definitions. They can improve readability and reduce verbosity, but may also introduce minor performance overhead due to their syntactic sugar.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser Support**: The benchmark is run on Chrome 104, which means the results may not be representative of other browsers or versions.
* **Device Platform**: The test is run on a desktop platform, which might affect performance compared to mobile or web platforms.
* **Operating System**: The test is run on Mac OS X 10.15.7, which might have specific hardware or software configurations that impact performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing the performance of map functions could include:

1. Using a different external library (e.g., Ramda) instead of Lodash.
2. Implementing a custom `map()` function using a different programming style (e.g., loop-based).
3. Comparing with other JavaScript implementations, such as TypeScript or Node.js.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on specific requirements and goals for the benchmark.

Native map vs Lodash map (version: 3) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Lodash map vs Native map`

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash map

Native map

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Native map vs Lodash map (version: 3) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Lodash map vs Native map

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash map

Native map

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

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: `Lodash map vs Native map`