Benchmark: Unique Array: Lodash vs spread new Set vs reduce vs for v2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var testArr = "JRQ, SCTS, KKC, KKC, KKC, RGC, PDA, PDA, RGC, KKC, PDA, PDA, PDA, SCTS, KKC, DAH, JRM, JRM, RGC, RGC, DAMB, DAMB, KKC, SCTS, RGC, PAC, KKC, KKC, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, KKC, KKC, MIDK, MIDK, KKC, RGC, CHTS, CHTS, CHTS, CHTS, JRQ, JRQ, SCTS, DAH, DAH, AEWC, DQQL, PAC, DQQL, DQQL, AEWC, KIS, AEWC, DQQL, AEWC, PAC, RHN, RHN, KIS, KIS, RHN, RHN, RHN, KIS, KIS, KIS, KIS, KIS, JRQ, RGC, SCTS, RGC, SCTS, KKC, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, SCTS, DGJ, DGJ, RGC, KKC, KKC, MIDK, MIDK, RGC, KKC, RGC, RGC, RGC, RGC, DGJ, DGJ, PDA, RGC, JRQ, PDA, SCTS, RGC, RGC, SCTS, DXJM, JRQ, PDA, PDA, PDA, SCTS, DAH, DAH, RGC, RGC,".split(', ');

Tests:

Array from Set
[...new Set(testArr)]
Lodash Uniq
_.uniq(testArr)
Array Unique
const { resultArray } = testArr.reduce((result, item) => { if(!result.resultMap[item]){ result.resultMap[item] = true; result.resultArray.push(item) } return result; }, {resultArray: [], resultMap: {}}); return resultArray;
For Loop
const resultArray = []; const resultMap = {}; for(let i=0; i < testArr.length; i++ ) { const item = testArr[i]; if(resultMap[item]){ continue; } resultMap[item] = true; resultArray.push(item) } return resultArray;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array from Set
Lodash Uniq
Array Unique
For Loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares four approaches to create an array of unique elements from a given string:

1. Using `new Set()`
2. Using Lodash's `uniq()` function
3. Using a `for` loop with a `resultMap` object
4. Using a `for` loop without a `resultMap` object

**Options Compared**

Here are the options being compared, along with their pros and cons:

1. **`new Set()`**: This approach uses JavaScript's built-in `Set` data structure to create an array of unique elements.
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and concise.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the input string contains non-unique elements that are considered equal (e.g., "a" and "A").
2. **Lodash's `uniq()` function**: This approach uses a dedicated library to create an array of unique elements.
	* Pros: Robust, well-tested, and easy to use.
	* Cons: Adds external dependencies and may not be suitable for small projects or those with strict licensing requirements.
3. **`for` loop with `resultMap` object**: This approach uses a manual implementation to create an array of unique elements.
	* Pros: Customizable, no external dependencies required.
	* Cons: More verbose, prone to errors if not implemented correctly.
4. **`for` loop without `resultMap` object**: This approach is similar to the previous one but lacks the `resultMap` object for filtering duplicates.
	* Pros: Simple, fast.
	* Cons: Prone to errors, may produce incorrect results if not implemented correctly.

**Library Used**

Lodash's `uniq()` function is used in one of the benchmark test cases. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object creation, and more.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language features provided by ES6 and later versions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to create an array of unique elements from a string in your own project, here are some alternative approaches:

* Using `Map` object with `has()` method: Similar to the `for` loop approach, but uses a `Map` object for filtering duplicates.
* Using `filter()` method with a callback function: Another manual implementation that uses the `filter()` method to create an array of unique elements.

```javascript
// Example using Map object
const resultArray = [];
const resultMap = new Map();
for (const item of testArr) {
  if (!resultMap.has(item)) {
    resultMap.set(item, true);
    resultArray.push(item);
  }
}
```

```javascript
// Example using filter() method
const resultArray = testArr.filter((item, index, self) => {
  return self.indexOf(item) === index;
});
```

These approaches can be more efficient and concise than the `for` loop approach, but may require more careful implementation to avoid errors.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array from Set	585536.6 Ops/sec
Lodash Uniq	308937.2 Ops/sec
Array Unique	855904.9 Ops/sec
For Loop	99653.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Unique Array: Lodash vs spread new Set vs reduce vs for v2 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Array from Set vs Lodash Uniq vs Array Unique vs For Loop

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array from Set

Lodash Uniq

Array Unique

For Loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):