Benchmark: _.filter vs array filter (underscore)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [10, 40, 230, 15, 18, 51, 1221]

Tests:

_.filter
_.filter(numbers, num => num % 3 === 0)
array filter
numbers.filter(num => num % 3 === 0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.filter
array filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.filter	3576170.2 Ops/sec
array filter	7598311.5 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 benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `_.filter` (using the Underscore.js library) and `array filter` (native JavaScript method). Both tests are designed to measure the performance of filtering an array of numbers where each number has a remainder of 0 when divided by 3.

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, we have two approaches:

1. **_.filter** (using Underscore.js): This method uses the `_.filter` function from the Underscore.js library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript.
2. **array filter** (native JavaScript method): This approach uses the native `filter()` method on an array.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **_.filter**:
	* Pros: Uses the optimized implementation in the Underscore.js library, which may lead to better performance.
	* Cons: Requires including the additional library dependency, which might add overhead for some users.
2. **array filter**:
	* Pros: No additional dependencies required, as it's a built-in method.
	* Cons: May not be optimized as well as the _.filter implementation in Underscore.js.

**Underscore.js Library**

In this benchmark, the `_.filter` function is used from the Underscore.js library. The Underscore.js library provides a set of utility functions that can simplify common tasks in JavaScript. In this case, it's being used to filter an array based on a condition.

**Native JavaScript Syntax (ES6+)**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special ES6+ features or syntax beyond the `const` keyword and template literals for string manipulation. However, if we were to rewrite the native JavaScript approach using more modern syntax, it might look something like this:
```javascript
numbers.filter(num => num % 3 === 0);
```
This code uses an arrow function as the callback for the `filter()` method.

**Other alternatives**

If we wanted to explore other approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Lodash**: Similar to Underscore.js, Lodash is another popular utility library that provides various functions, including `filter()`.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce() + Array.prototype.map()**: We could potentially implement the filtering logic using `reduce()` and `map()` methods in combination.
3. **Map-based approach**: Instead of using a filter or map function, we could use a Map data structure to store the filtered elements and then retrieve them.

However, these alternatives would likely result in different performance characteristics and might not be as straightforward to implement as the _.filter and array filter approaches.

Related benchmarks:

_.filter vs array filter (underscore) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.filter vs array filter

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.filter

array filter

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):