Benchmark: Lodash difference vs filtering via set membership with high overlap

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = [];
for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
  arr1.push(i.toString());
}

var arr2 = [];
for(let i = 89999; i >= 0; i--) {
  arr2.push(i.toString());
}

Tests:

Lodash
const notInArr2 = _.difference(arr1, arr2)
Set & Filter
const arr2Set = new Set(arr2); const notInArr2 = arr1.filter(value => !arr2Set.has(value));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Set & Filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases:

1. **Lodash**: This test case uses the `lodash` library to perform a difference operation between two arrays, `arr1` and `arr2`. The difference is calculated using the `_difference()` function.
2. **Set & Filter**: This test case creates an array `arr2` with values in descending order from 100,000 to 0. Then, it uses a `Set` data structure to create `arr2Set`, which contains only unique values from `arr2`. The difference is calculated by filtering out elements from `arr1` that are not present in `arr2Set`.

**Options Compared**

In the Set & Filter test case, two approaches are compared:

a. **Lodash**: Using the `_difference()` function to calculate the difference between `arr1` and `arr2`.
b. **Set & Filter**: Using a manual approach with a `Set` data structure to create `arr2Set`, which is then used for filtering.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash (a)**

Pros:

* Convenient and easy-to-use function
* Optimized for performance

Cons:

* Adds overhead due to the library's execution
* May not be optimized for specific use cases or platforms

**Set & Filter (b)**

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient, as it only uses basic JavaScript data structures
* Can be optimized for specific use cases or platforms

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation of a `Set` data structure
* More verbose and less convenient than using the `_difference()` function

**Other Considerations**

The choice between these two approaches depends on various factors, such as:

* Performance requirements: If high performance is critical, using a lightweight approach like Set & Filter might be preferable.
* Complexity tolerance: If you're willing to invest time in implementing a custom `Set` data structure, the Set & Filter approach can be more elegant and readable.
* Library usage: Lodash has a large community and extensive documentation, which can be beneficial for complex use cases. However, adding library overhead might not be desirable.

**Library Usage**

In the Set & Filter test case, the `lodash` library is used to provide the `_difference()` function. The purpose of this library is to offer a convenient and efficient way to perform common array operations, such as set difference calculations.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that using `Set` data structures is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which provides efficient and lightweight way to store unique values.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Manual iteration**: Instead of using `_difference()` or Set & Filter, you can implement manual iteration over arrays or sets using traditional loop constructs.
* **Other libraries**: There are other JavaScript libraries available that provide set difference calculations, such as `fast-set` or `array-difference`.
* **Native browser APIs**: Some modern browsers provide native support for array operations, such as `set()` and `filter()`, which can be used to implement lightweight set differences.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and readability. It's essential to evaluate the specific requirements and constraints of your use case when choosing an approach.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	188.6 Ops/sec
Set & Filter	265.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash difference vs filtering via set membership with high overlap (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Set & Filter

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Set & Filter

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):