Benchmark: Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000);

Tests:

Array.prototype.map
data.map(function (number) { return number * 2});
Lodash.map
_.map(data, function (number) { return number * 2});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.map
Lodash.map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/143.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Array.prototype.map

643/s

Lodash.map

570/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.prototype.map	643 Ops/sec
Lodash.map	570 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark test case provided by MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches:

1. `Array.prototype.map` (native JavaScript method)
2. `_map` function from Lodash library

In particular, both methods are applied to an array of 1,000,000 elements and perform a simple transformation on each element: multiplying it by 2.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

* `Array.prototype.map`: This is a native JavaScript method that applies a specified function to every element in an array.
* `_map` from Lodash library: This is a higher-order function that takes a callback function and applies it to each element in an array. It's essentially a wrapper around the native JavaScript `map` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `Array.prototype.map`:
	+ Pros:
		- Native JavaScript, so it should be faster and more efficient.
		- Less overhead compared to using a library like Lodash.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be less readable due to the use of `this` context and binding.
		- May have limitations in terms of functional programming capabilities.
* `_map` from Lodash library:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a more concise and readable way to perform transformations on arrays.
		- Offers additional features like memoization, caching, and support for more complex data structures.
	+ Cons:
		- Introduces an external dependency (Lodash library), which can increase the bundle size and complexity.
		- May have a slight performance overhead compared to native JavaScript `map`.

**Other considerations**

In terms of special JavaScript features or syntax, neither approach uses anything that's not standard in modern JavaScript. However, if you're using ES6+ features like `const`, `let`, or `class` declarations, you might want to consider those when writing your own benchmark code.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare the performance of other array methods or libraries, here are some alternatives:

* For native JavaScript methods:
	+ `Array.prototype.forEach`
	+ `Array.prototype.filter`
	+ `Array.prototype.reduce`
* For other library-based approaches:
	+ Use functions like `forEach`, `filter`, and `reduce` from the `array` method in Lodash.
	+ Consider using functional programming libraries like Ramda or Purescript.

In terms of other benchmarking frameworks, MeasureThat.net is quite unique because it allows users to create their own microbenchmarks with a simple HTML and JavaScript setup. However, if you're looking for alternative frameworks, you might want to explore options like:

* Benchmark.js
* JSPerf
* Webperf

These tools provide more features and flexibility for creating complex benchmarks, but they often require more setup and configuration compared to MeasureThat.net's simple approach.

Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data (version: 0)

Approaches performance

Comparing performance of: `Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.prototype.map

Lodash.map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data (version: 0)

Approaches performance

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.prototype.map

Lodash.map

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: `Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map`