Benchmark: test12234 pivot - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = Array(10000).fill(null).map((x, a) => ({number: a}));
var filterFn = x => !(x.number % 5);
var mapFn = x => x.number;
var reduceFn = (a, b) => a > b ? a : b;

Tests:

Native array functions
const result1 = values.filter(filterFn).map(mapFn).reduce(reduceFn); console.log(result1);
Lodash
const result2 = _(values).filter(filterFn).map(mapFn).reduce(reduceFn); console.log(result2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native array functions
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches: native JavaScript array methods and Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

The script preparation code creates an array of 10,000 elements with a "number" property. Three functions are defined:

1. `filterFn`: takes an element and returns `true` if the number is not divisible by 5.
2. `mapFn`: takes an element and returns its number.
3. `reduceFn`: combines two elements into one based on whether the first number is greater than the second.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests:

1. **Native JavaScript array methods**: uses native JavaScript functions (e.g., `Array.prototype.filter()`, `Array.prototype.map()`, `Array.prototype.reduce()`) to perform the operations.
2. **Lodash library**: uses Lodash's `filter()` and `map()` functions, as well as its `reduceBy` function, to achieve similar results.

**Pros and Cons**

Native JavaScript array methods:

Pros:

* Typically faster and more efficient, since they're implemented in C++ and optimized for performance.
* More explicit and easier to understand, especially for developers familiar with the native API.

Cons:

* May require more code and setup, depending on the specific use case.
* Can be less flexible or feature-rich compared to Lodash.

Lodash library:

Pros:

* Provides a comprehensive set of utility functions that can simplify code and improve readability.
* Often includes caching and memoization, which can lead to better performance in certain scenarios.

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency, which may increase the risk of security vulnerabilities or version conflicts.
* Can be slower due to overhead from function calls and caching.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used through a CDN link. The `lodash.min.js` file contains all the necessary functions, including `filter()`, `map()`, and `reduceBy`. Lodash's purpose is to provide a convenient way to perform common tasks, such as data manipulation and filtering.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code uses standard ECMAScript 2020 syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Underscore.js**: Similar to Lodash, but with a more minimalist design.
2. **Moment.js**: A popular date and time library that can be used for similar tasks as Lodash's filtering and mapping functions.
3. **Native TypeScript or Flow types**: If you're already using TypeScript or Flow, you could use their type systems to implement the same functionality, potentially with better performance and code quality.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the exact same convenience and flexibility as Lodash or native JavaScript array methods.

Related benchmarks:

test12234 pivot (version: 0)

Compare native

Comparing performance of: Native array functions vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native array functions

Lodash

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):