Benchmark: Lodash isEqual vs Loop and Set

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arrA = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){
  arrA.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

var arrAc = [...arrA];

Tests:

_.isEqual
_.isEqual(_.sortBy(arrA), _.sortBy(arrAc));
for...loop
var arrB = new Set([...arrA]); for (const i of arrA) { if (!arrB.has(i)) { break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEqual
for...loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36 Edg/96.0.1054.62

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEqual	12.8 Ops/sec
for...loop	127.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches: Lodash's `isEqual` function and a loop-based approach using a Set data structure.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Lodash's `isEqual` function**: This is a widely-used utility function from the Lodash library that compares two values for equality.
2. **Loop-based approach with Set**: This approach uses a for...loop to iterate over the first array (`arrA`) and checks if each element exists in a Set created from the second array (`arrAc`). If an element is not found, the loop breaks.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash's `isEqual` function**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, efficient, and widely adopted.
	* Cons: May have performance issues for very large arrays due to its recursive nature.
2. **Loop-based approach with Set**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than the recursive `isEqual` function for large arrays, as it uses a single pass through the data.
	* Cons: More complex and error-prone due to the use of a Set.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string handling, and more. The `isEqual` function is part of this library and is used here as the baseline comparison method.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None are mentioned in the provided benchmark code.

**Other Alternatives**

For comparing arrays, other approaches might include:

* Using a library like jQuery's `eq()` method
* Utilizing the built-in JavaScript `every()` method with an arrow function
* Implementing a custom comparison algorithm using bitwise operations

However, these alternatives are not part of the Lodash library or Set-based approach.

**Benchmark Interpretation**

The benchmark results show that the loop-based approach with Set performs better than Lodash's `isEqual` function for this specific use case. This is likely due to the efficiency gains from using a single pass through the data in the Set approach, as opposed to the recursive nature of `isEqual`.

To interpret these results, one can consider factors like:

* The size and complexity of the input arrays
* The expected frequency of use cases requiring array comparison
* The trade-off between code readability and performance

Keep in mind that this benchmark is specific to the provided test case and might not generalize to all scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash isEqual vs Loop and Set (version: 0)

Compare Lodash's isEqual with a loop and a set for comparing two large, identical arrays.

Comparing performance of: _.isEqual vs for...loop

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEqual

for...loop

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):