Benchmark: Lodash values vs Object.values

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var value = {a: 30310, b: 100303, c: 3040494};

Tests:

Lodash
_.values(value)
Native
Object.values(value)

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: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	15626276.0 Ops/sec
Native	37463500.0 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to extract values from an object: using the Lodash library (`_.values(value)`) versus the native `Object.values()` method.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash**: Using the Lodash library's `_.values()` method to access the values of the `value` object.
2. **Native**: Using the native `Object.values()` method to access the values of the `value` object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: Lodash is a well-maintained, widely-used library that provides a simple and consistent API for accessing array-like objects.
	+ Cons: It introduces an extra dependency (the Lodash library) and may incur additional overhead due to the need to load the library and its dependencies.
* **Native**:
	+ Pros: The native `Object.values()` method is a lightweight, built-in function that doesn't introduce any additional dependencies.
	+ Cons: It's only available in modern browsers (not older browsers), and its API may not be as consistent or convenient as Lodash.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* If you need to support older browsers, the native `Object.values()` method might not be an option.
* If you prioritize simplicity and consistency in your code, Lodash might be a better choice.
* If you're concerned about additional dependencies or overhead, the native `Object.values()` method is a lightweight alternative.

**Library (Lodash)**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and object transformation. The `_.values()` method is one of its many utility functions that can be used to access the values of an array-like object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (Not Applicable)**

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

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes:
```javascript
var value = {a: 30310, b: 100303, c: 3040494};
```
This sets up a simple object `value` with three properties and their corresponding values. The HTML preparation code includes the script tag that loads the Lodash library:
```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
```
**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to access object values, consider using:

* The `for...in` loop: `for (var key in value) { console.log(key + ': ' + value[key]); }`
* The `Object.keys()` method: `Object.keys(value).forEach(function(key) { console.log(key + ': ' + value[key]); });`

However, these approaches are generally less efficient and more verbose than the native `Object.values()` method or Lodash's `_.values()` method.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash values vs Object.values (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):