Benchmark: lodash xor perf - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function dec2hex (dec) {
  return dec < 10
    ? '0' + String(dec)
    : dec.toString(16)
}

function generateId (len) {
  var arr = new Uint8Array((len || 40) / 2)
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(arr)
  return Array.from(arr, dec2hex).join('')
}

var a = []
var b = []
for( let i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
  a[i] = generateId(16)
  b[i] = generateId(16)
}

Tests:

lodash xor
const res = _.xor(a, b)
with Sets
var as = new Set(a) var bs = new Set(b) const res = a .filter((row_id) => bs.has(row_id)) .concat(b.filter((row_id) => !as.has(row_id)))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash xor
with Sets

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to calculating the XOR (exclusive or) of two arrays, `a` and `b`. The first approach uses Lodash's `_.xor` function, while the second approach uses JavaScript Sets.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash Xor**: This test case measures the performance of using Lodash's `_.xor` function to calculate the XOR of two arrays.
2. **With Sets**: This test case measures the performance of using JavaScript Sets to calculate the XOR of two arrays.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches have different strengths and weaknesses:

* **Lodash Xor**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, well-maintained library with a large community.
	+ Cons: May not be optimized for performance in certain cases.
* **With Sets**:
	+ Pros: Highly optimized for performance, can take advantage of modern CPU instructions.
	+ Cons: Requires creating two Set objects and iterating over the arrays.

**Library**

In the Lodash Xor test case, the `_.xor` function is used. This is a popular utility library that provides various functions for functional programming tasks. In this case, it's being used to calculate the XOR of two arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code generates two large arrays of random IDs using the `generateId` function and assigns them to variables `a` and `b`.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* **Using a simple loop**: Instead of using Lodash's `_.xor` or JavaScript Sets, one could write a simple loop to calculate the XOR of two arrays. This would likely be slower than both of the above approaches.
* **Using other libraries**: There are other libraries available that provide optimized implementations of array operations, such as Array.prototype.reduce() or Array.prototype.filter(). These might offer better performance than Lodash's `_.xor`.
* **Native JavaScript implementation**: Some browsers and Node.js versions have native implementations of array operations, which might be faster than using a library like Lodash.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash xor	9874.9 Ops/sec
with Sets	26353.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash xor perf (version: 0)

Searching for faster solution for _.xor(a, b)

Comparing performance of: lodash xor vs with Sets

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash xor

with Sets

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):