Benchmark: Lodash Chain vs Native vs Flow

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(10000000).fill({ a: 'a', b: 1 });

Tests:

Chain
_.chain(data).filter(f => f.a === 'a').filter(f => f.b === 1).filter(f => f.b + 1 === 2).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a').value()
Native (with &&)
data.filter(f => f.a === 'a' && f.b === 1 && f.b + 1 === 2).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a')
Native (without &&)
data.filter(f => f.a === 'a').filter(f => f.b === 1).filter(f => f.b + 1 === 2).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a')
Flow
_.flow( _.filter(f => f.a === 'a'), _.filter(f => f.b === 1), _.filter(f => f.b + 1 === 2), _.map(f => f.a), _.filter(f => f === 'a') )(data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Chain
Native (with &&)
Native (without &&)
Flow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare the performance of different approaches, libraries, and syntax features.

The provided benchmark definition json represents a simple filter-based data processing pipeline using Lodash library functions: `chain`, `flow`, native (with &&), and native (without &&).

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of four test cases:

1. **Chain**: Uses the `_.chain()` method to create a chain of Lodash functions, filtering the data step-by-step.
2. **Native (with &&)**: Filters the data using multiple conditions with the logical AND operator (`&&`).
3. **Native (without &&)**: Similar to the previous one, but without using the logical AND operator.
4. **Flow**: Uses the `_.flow()` method to create a sequence of Lodash functions, filtering the data step-by-step.

**Options Compared**

* `Chain`: vs `_.chain()`
* `Native (with &&)` vs `&&` operator
* `Native (without &&)` vs no logical AND operator
* `Flow`: vs `_.flow()`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Chain**
	* Pros: step-by-step filtering, readable code, and easy to maintain.
	* Cons: might be slower due to the overhead of creating a chain of functions.
2. **Native (with &&)**
	* Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported in modern browsers.
	* Cons: more complex code, harder to read and debug, especially for large pipelines.
3. **Native (without &&)**
	* Pros: similar performance to the native with && approach, but without the complexity of the operator.
	* Cons: requires multiple condition checks, which can be slower.
4. **Flow**
	* Pros: step-by-step filtering, readable code, and easy to maintain, similar to Chain.
	* Cons: slightly slower due to the overhead of creating a sequence of functions.

**Libraries Used**

* Lodash: A popular JavaScript utility library providing functional programming helpers.
* `_.chain()`: A method that creates a chain of Lodash functions, allowing for step-by-step filtering and transformation of data.
* `_.flow()`: A method that creates a sequence of Lodash functions, also allowing for step-by-step filtering and transformation of data.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

For testing and benchmarking JavaScript code, MeasureThat.net is one of the few platforms offering a straightforward and user-friendly interface. Other alternatives include:

* jsperf: A simple, web-based tool for benchmarking JavaScript code.
* Benchmark.js: A library providing a simple way to write benchmarks in JavaScript.
* Jest or Mocha with a custom benchmarking setup.

These alternatives may offer more features and flexibility than MeasureThat.net but require more expertise and effort to set up.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Chain	1.8 Ops/sec
Native (with &&)	2.1 Ops/sec
Native (without &&)	1.4 Ops/sec
Flow	1.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash Chain vs Native vs Flow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Chain vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Chain

Native (with &&)

Native (without &&)

Flow

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):