Benchmark: _.difference vs. native

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var one = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
var two = [5, 2, 10];

Tests:

_.difference
_.difference(one, two)
native
[one, two].reduce((a, b) => a.filter(c => !b.includes(c)))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.difference
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.difference	1911891.0 Ops/sec
native	5230454.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark test for you.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to find the elements that are in one array but not in another: using Lodash's `_.difference` function and implementing a native solution using JavaScript's built-in functions (`filter()` and `includes()`).

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash's _.difference**: This function takes two arrays as input and returns a new array containing only the elements that are present in the first array but not in the second.
2. **Native Solution**: This approach uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with elements that pass the condition, and then checks if each element is included in the second array using the `includes()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash's _.difference**:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable code.
		+ Well-tested and maintained by a large community.
		+ Reduces boilerplate code.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an extra dependency (Lodash) to the benchmark.
		+ Might be slower due to the overhead of importing a library.
2. **Native Solution**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional dependencies or performance overhead.
		+ Uses built-in functions that are optimized for performance.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and complex code compared to Lodash's solution.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, it's used to implement the `_.difference` function, which simplifies the process of finding elements in two arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect its performance. It only relies on standard JavaScript functions like `filter()`, `includes()`, and array operations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you could also compare other approaches, such as:

* Using `Set` data structures for efficient element lookups.
* Implementing the solution in a specific programming language (e.g., C++) and then benchmarking it using JavaScript's V8 engine.
* Using a library like jQuery or another utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.

However, these alternatives would likely require significant modifications to the benchmark and might not be as straightforward to implement.

Related benchmarks:

_.difference vs. native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.difference vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.difference

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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