Benchmark: lodash set vs manual object comparison

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var items = [];

for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  items.push({
    id: i,
  });
}

Tests:

manual
const stats = _.reduce( items, (stats, item) => { stats[item.id] = { goals: [], nb_goals_as_owner: 0, nb_goals_as_contributor: 0, ...item}; return stats; }, { } )
lodash set
let stats = _.reduce( items, (empById, item) => _.set( empById, item.id, _.assign(item, { goals: [], nb_goals_as_owner: 0, nb_goals_as_contributor: 0 }) ), {} );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
manual
lodash set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
manual	43188.8 Ops/sec
lodash set	2959.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to update an object in JavaScript:

1. **Manual approach**: This method uses a simple loop to iterate over each item in the `items` array and updates the corresponding object in the `stats` object using dot notation (e.g., `stats[item.id] = { ...item }`).
2. **Lodash set function**: This method uses the `_set` function from the Lodash library to update the object in a more concise and efficient way.

**Options compared:**

* Manual approach vs Lodash set function
* Performance benefits of using a dedicated utility library like Lodash

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Manual approach:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to understand and implement for simple use cases.
		- No dependencies on external libraries.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be error-prone and tedious to maintain, especially for large objects or complex updates.
		- May have performance overhead due to the need for explicit loop iterations.
* **Lodash set function:**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and efficient way to update objects.
		- Provides a standardized interface for updating objects in many libraries and frameworks.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional dependency on the Lodash library.
		- May introduce overhead due to the need for a small JavaScript function call.

**Lodash library:**

The `_.set` function is part of the Lodash library, which provides a collection of utility functions for functional programming, array manipulation, and object manipulation. In this case, `_set` is used to update objects in a more concise way than the manual approach. The library is designed to provide a standardized interface for updating objects in many libraries and frameworks.

**Other alternatives:**

There are other approaches to updating objects in JavaScript, such as:

* Using `Object.assign()` or `Object.create()` to create a new object with updated properties.
* Using a combination of `forEach` loop and object literal updates (e.g., `stats[item.id] = { ... }`).
* Using a library like jQuery that provides similar functionality to Lodash.

However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of performance or conciseness as the Lodash set function.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typical for modern JavaScript development.

Related benchmarks:

lodash set vs manual object comparison (version: 0)

a

Comparing performance of: manual vs lodash set

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

manual

lodash set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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