Benchmark: js vs lowdash - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

lowdah
_.filter(data, 'filtering')
js
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lowdah
js

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using Lodash's `filter` function and implementing a simple filtering logic directly in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are only two test cases:

1. **LowDash**: Uses Lodash's `filter` function with the following syntax:
   ```javascript
_.filter(data, 'filtering')
```
2. **JS**: Implements a simple filtering logic using a standard JavaScript function:
   ```javascript
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering)
```

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1.  **LowDash (Lodash)**

*   **Pros:**

*   **Readability**: Lodash's `filter` function is concise and easy to read, as it separates the logic from the data processing.
        *   **Pre-built functionality**: Lodash provides a pre-built filtering function that can save time for developers who are already familiar with its API.
    *   **Cons:**

*   **Performance Overhead**: Since Lodash is a third-party library, including the overhead of loading and initializing it might impact performance.
2.  **JS (Vanilla JavaScript)**

*   **Pros:**

*   **No Overhead**: Implementing the filtering logic in vanilla JavaScript means there's no extra load from an external library.
        *   **Full control**: Developers have complete control over the implementation, allowing for optimization and fine-tuning.

*   **Cons:**

*   **Readability**: The code might be less readable due to the separation of concern between data processing and filtering logic.
        *   **Maintainability**: Without a pre-built library like Lodash, developers need to maintain their own implementation, which can add complexity.

**Library - LowDash**

LowDash (Lodash) is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for data manipulation, string manipulation, and other common tasks. The `filter` function is one of its many useful tools for working with arrays and objects in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no special feature or syntax being tested here. Both test cases follow standard JavaScript syntax and utilize familiar functions (`.filter()`).

**Other Alternatives**

When it comes to filtering large datasets, several alternatives exist:

*   **D3.js**: A popular data visualization library that also includes powerful array manipulation functions.
*   **RxJS**: A reactive extensions library for JavaScript that provides a robust set of tools for handling asynchronous data streams.
*   **Vanilla array methods**: You can also use vanilla array methods like `filter()`, `map()`, and `reduce()` directly in your code.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional overhead or complexity compared to using Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

js vs lowdash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lowdah vs js

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lowdah

js

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):