Benchmark: Test map - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

arrays = new Array(1000000).fill(1).map((_,index) => index);

Tests:

1
const test = arrays.map(item =>item);
2
const test = _.map(arrays, (item) => item);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the test case. It contains:

* `Name`: A descriptive name for the benchmark.
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: The code used to prepare the data for the test. In this case, it's creating an array of 1 million elements using JavaScript's `Array` constructor and the `map()` method.
* `Html Preparation Code`: The HTML code that sets up the environment for the test. It includes a link to a version of Lodash (a popular utility library) via a CDN.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**: Uses JavaScript's built-in `map()` method to transform an array.
2. **Test Case 2**: Uses the `map()` function from the Lodash library, which provides additional features and optimizations for working with arrays.

**Comparison of Map Functionality**

The two test cases compare the performance of using JavaScript's built-in `map()` method versus the `map()` function from Lodash. This comparison highlights differences in:

* **Optimization**: Lodash's implementation is optimized for performance, which may result in better execution times.
* **Features**: Lodash provides additional features like caching, memoization, and support for other data structures (like sets or maps), which might not be available or efficient in JavaScript's built-in `map()` method.
* **Library Overhead**: Using a library like Lodash introduces an overhead due to its dependencies and initialization processes.

**Pros and Cons**

**JavaScript Built-in `map()` Method:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and easy to use
* No additional dependencies or overhead

Cons:

* May not be optimized for performance, leading to slower execution times

**Lodash's `map()` Function:**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance
* Provides additional features and utilities for working with arrays

Cons:

* Introduces an additional dependency (the Lodash library) and potential overhead
* May require more code to achieve the same result as JavaScript's built-in `map()`

**Library Considerations**

In this case, the use of Lodash is likely intended to provide a performance boost or simplify the implementation. However, using a third-party library can also introduce additional complexity and dependencies.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. The usage of `map()` and its variations is standard JavaScript functionality.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare the performance of map function could include:

* Using a different JavaScript library, like Ramda or Lo-Dash
* Implementing a custom array mapping algorithm from scratch
* Comparing the performance of different language implementations, like TypeScript or CoffeeScript

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; GM1910) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.134 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 91 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	26.9 Ops/sec
2	135.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test map (version: 0)

Test map

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):