Benchmark: test foreach lodash JS

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var todoList = {id: 1,
      title: 'Todo App',
      items: [
        {
          id: 1,
          text: 'Create todo list item1',
          dateTime: new Date(2021, 3, 22, 0, 30),
          checked: false,
        }, {
          id: 2,
          text: 'Create todo list item2',
          checked: false,
        }, {
          id: 3,
          text: 'Create todo list item3',
          checked: false,
        }, {
          id: 4,
          text: 'Create todo list item4',
          checked: true,
        }, {
          id: 5,
          text: 'Create todo list item5',
          checked: true,
        }, {
          id: 6,
          text: 'Create todo list item4Create todo list item4Create todo list item4Create todo list item4',
          checked: true,
        },
    ]
};

var todo = [];
var done = [];


function filterJS(todoListCopy) { 
    _.forEach(todoListCopy.items, (item) => {
      if (item.checked) {
        done.push(item);
      } else {
        todo.push(item);
      }
    });
}

function filterLodash(todoListCopy) { 
    _.forEach(todoListCopy.items, (item) => {
      if (item.checked) {
        done.push(item);
      } else {
        todo.push(item);
      }
    });
}

Tests:

test JS
filterJS(todoList);
test lodash
filterLodash(todoList);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test JS
test lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test JS	1403372.0 Ops/sec
test lodash	1383620.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two functions: `filterJS` and `filterLodash`. Both functions are designed to filter an array of items in a todo list. The main difference between them lies in how they access and manipulate the data.

1. **`filterJS`**: This function uses a traditional JavaScript approach, iterating through each item in the `todoList.items` array using a simple `for` loop.
2. **`filterLodash`**: This function utilizes the Lodash library's `forEach` method to iterate through the `todoList.items` array. The `_.forEach` method is a higher-order function that executes a callback function for each element in the array.

**Options Compared**

The two functions are compared to measure their performance differences:

1. **`filterJS`**: This option uses a traditional JavaScript approach, which can be more intuitive but might lead to slower performance due to overhead from the V8 engine.
2. **`filterLodash`**: This option leverages the Lodash library's optimized `forEach` method, which is designed for performance and can handle large datasets efficiently.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`filterJS`**:
	* Pros: More intuitive, easier to understand, and maintain.
	* Cons: Might be slower due to overhead from the V8 engine.
2. **`filterLodash`**:
	* Pros: Optimized for performance, can handle large datasets efficiently.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (the Lodash library), which might increase load times.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Libraries**: The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which provides a wide range of utility functions and high-performance methods like `forEach`. While this adds overhead to the test, it also allows for more efficient iteration over large datasets.
2. **Language Features**: This benchmark does not take into account any special JavaScript features or syntax that might affect performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives could include:

1. Using a different library, such as Underscore.js or Ramda, which offer similar functionality to Lodash.
2. Implementing the filtering logic in a different programming language, like C++ or Rust, which might be more optimized for performance.
3. Using a different data structure, like a Map or Set, instead of an array, to potentially reduce iteration overhead.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark and might not directly compare to the original `filterJS` and `filterLodash` implementations.

Related benchmarks:

test foreach lodash JS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test JS vs test lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test JS

test lodash

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):