Benchmark: Object.values(...).filter vs. _.filter

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

// Create large arrays
var arr1 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }
var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }
var arr3 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

// Create dictionaries
arr1 = _.keyBy(arr1, (value) => value);
arr2 = _.keyBy(arr2, (value) => value);
arr3 = _.keyBy(arr3, (value) => value);

Tests:

Object.values(...).filter
Object.values(arr1).filter((value) => value < (max1 / 2))
_.filter
_.filter(arr1, (value) => value < (max1 / 2))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.values(...).filter
_.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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `Object.values()` followed by `filter()`, and `_` (Lodash) followed by `filter()`. The test case uses large arrays (`arr1`, `arr2`, `arr3`) and dictionaries (created using Lodash's `keyBy()` method) to simulate real-world scenarios.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Object.values().filter()**: This approach involves first extracting the values from an array object using `Object.values()` and then filtering the resulting array using the `filter()` method.
2. **_.filter(arr1, ...) (Lodash)**: This approach uses Lodash's `filter()` function to filter the elements of the `arr1` array directly.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Object.values().filter()**:
	+ Pros: More explicit and intuitive way to extract values from an array object.
	+ Cons: May have higher overhead due to the extra function call and potential performance impact on larger arrays.
* **_.filter(arr1, ...) (Lodash)**:
	+ Pros: More efficient and concise way to filter an array using a popular library like Lodash.
	+ Cons: Requires including the additional library in the test environment, which may not be desirable for all use cases.

**Library: _.filter (Lodash)**

The `_` library is a JavaScript utility belt that provides various functions for common tasks, such as filtering arrays. In this benchmark, `_.filter()` is used to filter the elements of `arr1`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Array.prototype.filter()**: This approach would involve using the `filter()` method on the array object itself, rather than extracting values first.
* **map() and filter()**: Another approach could be to use the `map()` method to transform the array before filtering it.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Analysis**

The script preparation code generates three large arrays (`arr1`, `arr2`, `arr3`) and creates dictionaries using Lodash's `keyBy()` method. The arrays are populated with consecutive integers from 0 to `max1` (100,000), `max2` (10,000,000), and `max3` (100,000,000) respectively.

The `Object.values(arr1).filter()` and `_.filter(arr1, ...)` expressions are used as the benchmarking code. The resulting arrays are not used in the benchmark; instead, the focus is on measuring the performance of the filtering functions.

Related benchmarks:

Object.values(...).filter vs. _.filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.values(...).filter vs _.filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.values(...).filter

_.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):