Benchmark: lodash intersectionWith vs array filtering with includes

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var listOfObjects_1 = [{id: 1, name: '1'}, {id: 2, name: '2'}, {id: 5, name: '5'}]
var listOfObjects_2 = [{id: 1, name: '1'}, {id: 2, name: '2'}, {id: 5, name: '4'}]

Tests:

lodash intersectionWith
_.intersectionWith(listOfObjects_1, listOfObjects_2, (a,b) => a.id === b.id)
array filtering with includes
var ids_1 = listOfObjects_1.map(o => o.id) listOfObjects_2.filter(o => ids_1.includes(o.id))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash intersectionWith
array filtering with includes

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases:

1. **Lodash `intersectionWith`**: This test case uses the Lodash library to find the intersection between two arrays, `listOfObjects_1` and `listOfObjects_2`, based on a custom comparison function `(a,b) => a.id === b.id`. The goal is to measure how efficient this implementation is compared to another approach.
2. **Array filtering with `includes`**: This test case uses native JavaScript methods to find the intersection between two arrays, `listOfObjects_1` and `listOfObjects_2`, by mapping `listOfObjects_1` to an array of IDs (`ids_1`) and then filtering `listOfObjects_2` using `includes()` to check if each ID is present.

**Options compared**

The two test cases compare the following options:

* **Lodash `intersectionWith`**: A library-based implementation that uses a custom comparison function.
* **Array filtering with `includes`**: A native JavaScript implementation that relies on built-in array methods.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash `intersectionWith`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Abstracts away the complexity of implementing intersection logic, making it easier to write efficient code.
		+ Can be more concise and readable, especially for complex comparison functions.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces additional overhead due to the library itself and its custom implementation.
		+ May not be as optimized for performance as native JavaScript implementations.
2. **Array filtering with `includes`**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional overhead beyond what's required by the language itself.
		+ Can be highly optimized for performance, especially when using native array methods.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more boilerplate code to implement correctly.
		+ May not be as readable or maintainable due to its complexity.

**Library used:**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object manipulation, and functional programming. In this case, the `intersectionWith()` function is used to find the intersection between two arrays based on a custom comparison function.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmark test cases. The focus is on comparing the performance of different approaches to implementing array intersection logic.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for implementing array intersection logic, here are a few options:

* **Using `filter()` and `some()`**: You can use `filter()` to create a new array containing only the elements that pass a test implemented by a provided function (like `some()`), which returns a boolean value indicating whether an element passes the test.
* **Using `reduce()` and `every()`**: You can use `reduce()` to iterate over one of the arrays, comparing each element with the corresponding element in the other array using `every()`, which returns a boolean value indicating whether all elements pass the comparison.

These alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics than Lodash's `intersectionWith()` or array filtering with `includes()`.

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/102.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash intersectionWith	1202241.6 Ops/sec
array filtering with includes	2978970.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash intersectionWith vs array filtering with includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash intersectionWith vs array filtering with includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash intersectionWith

array filtering with includes

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):