Benchmark: lodash (split + join) vs lodash (replace) vs Vanilla JS (split + join) vs Vanilla JS (replace)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Tests:

lodash (split + join)
const status = "ACCEPTED_ON_AUDIT"; for ( let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { _.capitalize(status).split("_").join(" ") }
lodash (replace)
const status = "ACCEPTED_ON_AUDIT"; for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { _.capitalize(status).replace(/_/g, ' '); }
Vanilla Js (split + join)
const status = "ACCEPTED_ON_AUDIT"; for ( let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { status[0].toUpperCase() + status.slice(1).toLowerCase().split("_").join(" "); }
Vanilla Js (replace)
const status = "ACCEPTED_ON_AUDIT"; for ( let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { status[0].toUpperCase() + status.slice(1).toLowerCase().replace(/_/g, ' '); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash (split + join)
lodash (replace)
Vanilla Js (split + join)
Vanilla Js (replace)

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!

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to splitting and joining strings in JavaScript:

1. `_.capitalize` and `split` with Lodash library
2. `_replace` method with Lodash library
3. Manual approach using vanilla JavaScript (`status[0].toUpperCase() + status.slice(1).toLowerCase().split(" ")`)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches for each test case:

* With Lodash library:
	+ `_.capitalize` and `split`
	+ `_replace`
* Without Lodash library:
	+ Manual approach using vanilla JavaScript (`status[0].toUpperCase() + status.slice(1).toLowerCase().split(" ")`)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

With Lodash library:

* Pros:
	+ Simplified code
	+ Fewer lines to write
	+ Potential performance benefits due to optimized algorithms
* Cons:
	+ Additional dependency (Lodash)
	+ May introduce overhead due to library loading

Without Lodash library:

* Pros:
	+ No additional dependencies
	+ Faster execution due to fewer lines of code
* Cons:
	+ More complex code
	+ Potential performance issues if not optimized correctly

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including string manipulation. The `_capitalize` and `_replace` methods are part of the Lodash library.

The `_.capitalize` method capitalizes the first character of a string, while the `_replace` method replaces all occurrences of a substring with another substring.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and libraries (Lodash).

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider the following:

* Code complexity: Simpler code tends to be faster due to fewer lines of execution.
* Dependency overhead: Loading external libraries can introduce additional latency.
* Testing consistency: Make sure to test each approach consistently with the same input data and settings.

**Alternatives**

If you want to write your own microbenchmarking tool, consider using libraries like:

* **Benchmark.js**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library that provides a simple API for writing benchmarks.
* **Mathjs**: A mathematical expression evaluator that can be used for performance testing.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative tools depends on your specific needs and requirements.

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/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash (split + join)	18.1 Ops/sec
lodash (replace)	24.7 Ops/sec
Vanilla Js (split + join)	27.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla Js (replace)	46.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash (split + join) vs lodash (replace) vs Vanilla JS (split + join) vs Vanilla JS (replace) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash (split + join) vs lodash (replace) vs Vanilla Js (split + join) vs Vanilla Js (replace)

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash (split + join)

lodash (replace)

Vanilla Js (split + join)

Vanilla Js (replace)

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):