Benchmark: native lodash filter map 2

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:

native lodash filter map
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering).map(({ mapping }) => mapping)
Lazy Lodash filter-map
_.map(_.filter(data, 'filtering'), 'mapping')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native lodash filter map
Lazy Lodash filter-map

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 explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to filter and map data in JavaScript:

1. **Native Lodash**: This approach uses the `filter()` and `map()` methods directly on the native `Array` object.
2. **Lazy Lodash**: This approach uses a library called Lodash, which provides a set of utility functions for common tasks like filtering and mapping.

**What options are compared?**

The benchmark compares two options:

* Native Lodash: This option uses the built-in `filter()` and `map()` methods on the native `Array` object.
* Lazy Lodash: This option uses the `_.filter()` and `_.map()` functions from the Lodash library.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Native Lodash**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time, as it avoids the overhead of a library function call.
		+ May be more efficient for small to medium-sized datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires explicit knowledge of array methods and their limitations.
		+ May not be suitable for large datasets or complex filtering scenarios.
2. **Lazy Lodash**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and maintain, as it uses a more concise and expressive syntax.
		+ Can handle more complex filtering scenarios, such as nested objects or arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower execution time, due to the overhead of the library function call.
		+ May require additional dependencies (Lodash) that need to be included in the project.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a set of functions for common tasks like filtering, mapping, and transforming data. The `_.filter()` and `_.map()` functions used in the benchmark are part of this library.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing two approaches to filter and map data.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides similar functions to Lodash.
* **Array.prototype.filter() and Array.prototype.map()**: These methods can also be used for filtering and mapping arrays, but may require more code and explicit handling of edge cases.
* **Native JavaScript array methods with polyfills**: Some modern browsers support newer array methods like `find()` and `forEach()`, which could potentially replace the need for Lodash-like libraries.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs, and the choice ultimately depends on your project's specific needs and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

native lodash filter map 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native lodash filter map vs Lazy Lodash filter-map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native lodash filter map

Lazy Lodash filter-map

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):