Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
[sited] Lodash vs native reduce
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
reduce-native vs reduce-lodash
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/node-uuid/1.4.8/uuid.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
// Generate random collection var data = [] for (var i = 0; i < 5000; i++) { data.push({ name: uuid.v4(), number: Math.random() * 1000, }) }
Tests:
reduce-native
data.reduce(function (acc, o) {return o.name + acc})
reduce-lodash
_.reduce(data, function (acc, o) {return o.name + acc}, '')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce-native
reduce-lodash
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):
I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for reducing an array of objects: the native `Array.prototype.reduce()` method and the Lodash `_.reduce()` function. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Native Reduce**: The native `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, which is a built-in function in JavaScript that applies a reducer function to each element of an array, accumulating a result. 2. **Lodash Reduce**: The Lodash `_.reduce()` function, which is a utility function from the popular Lodash library that provides a more flexible and feature-rich way of reducing arrays. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach: * **Native Reduce**: + Pros: - Built-in function, no external dependencies required - Low memory overhead - Efficient performance + Cons: - Limited flexibility in terms of custom reduction functions - May not work as expected with non-standard array types (e.g., objects instead of arrays) * **Lodash Reduce**: + Pros: - Highly flexible and customizable - Works well with non-standard array types - Provides a more readable and maintainable code style + Cons: - External dependency required (Lodash library) - May have higher memory overhead compared to native reduce **Library: Lodash** The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. The `_.reduce()` function is one of the many useful utilities provided by Lodash. **Special JS feature or syntax** There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for reducing arrays, here are a few options: * **Array.prototype.forEach()**: While not suitable for reducing an array to a single value, `forEach()` can be used with a callback function that accumulates the results. * **Array.prototype.map() + Array.prototype.reduce()**: This approach involves using `map()` to create a new array with the desired transformation, followed by `reduce()` to combine the results. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the native reduce and Lodash reduce approaches.
Related benchmarks:
[sited] Lodash vs native map
[sited] Lodash vs native filter
[sited] Lodash vs native find
native slice vs native reduce vs lodash chunk
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?