Benchmark: lodash-chunk-vs-custom-chunk

HTML Preparation code:

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

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

Script Preparation code:

var test = new Array(100000).fill(null).map(() => Math.random());

function chunk(data, size) {
  const chunks = [];
  const numChunks = Math.floor(data / size);
  for (let i = 0; i <= numChunks; i++) {
    const start = i * size;
    chunks.push(data.slice(start, size));
  }
  return chunks;
}

​x
 
var test = new Array(100000).fill(null).map(() => Math.random());​function chunk(data, size) {  const chunks = [];  const numChunks = Math.floor(data / size);  for (let i = 0; i <= numChunks; i++) {    const start = i * size;    chunks.push(data.slice(start, size));  }  return chunks;}

Tests:

Custom Chunk
chunk(test,5000)
chunk(test,5000)
lodash chunk
_.chunk(test,5000)
_.chunk(test,5000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Custom Chunk
lodash chunk

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Custom Chunk	35.9 Ops/sec
lodash chunk	2858.3 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):

Benchmark Explanation

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to chunking an array of random numbers.

Options Compared:

Custom Chunk: This approach is implemented in JavaScript, where the chunk function manually calculates the number of chunks and creates them using Array.prototype.slice.
Lodash Chunk: This approach uses the _.chunk function from the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript.

Pros and Cons:

Custom Chunk:
- Pros:
  - Provides full control over the chunking process.
  - Can be optimized for specific use cases.
- Cons:
  - Requires manual implementation, which can lead to errors or inefficient code.
  - May not be as efficient as using a dedicated library like Lodash.
Lodash Chunk:
- Pros:
  - Uses an optimized and tested algorithm.
  - Reduces the risk of coding errors or performance issues.
- Cons:
  - Requires including an additional library (Lodash) in the test code.
  - May not be as customizable as a custom implementation.

Library: Lodash

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string formatting, and more. The _.chunk function specifically chunking an array into equal-sized chunks.

In this benchmark, the _.chunk function from Lodash is used to compare its performance with a custom implementation.

No Special JavaScript Features or Syntax

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. The code only uses standard JavaScript concepts and libraries like Lodash.

Alternative Approaches:

Other approaches for chunking an array could include:

Array.prototype.slice: This is a built-in method for splitting an array into chunks of a specified size.
Map-based approach: Using a Map data structure to store the chunked elements, which can be more efficient than Array.prototype.slice.
Library-specific solutions: Other libraries like Ramda or jQuery might provide their own chunking functions that could be used in place of Lodash.

However, these alternatives are not included in the provided benchmark code and would require separate implementation and testing.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to chunking an array of random numbers.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Custom Chunk**: This approach is implemented in JavaScript, where the `chunk` function manually calculates the number of chunks and creates them using `Array.prototype.slice`.
2. **Lodash Chunk**: This approach uses the `_.chunk` function from the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Custom Chunk**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides full control over the chunking process.
		- Can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual implementation, which can lead to errors or inefficient code.
		- May not be as efficient as using a dedicated library like Lodash.
* **Lodash Chunk**:
	+ Pros:
		- Uses an optimized and tested algorithm.
		- Reduces the risk of coding errors or performance issues.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires including an additional library (Lodash) in the test code.
		- May not be as customizable as a custom implementation.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string formatting, and more. The `_.chunk` function specifically chunking an array into equal-sized chunks.

In this benchmark, the `_.chunk` function from Lodash is used to compare its performance with a custom implementation.

**No Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. The code only uses standard JavaScript concepts and libraries like Lodash.

**Alternative Approaches:**

Other approaches for chunking an array could include:

1. **Array.prototype.slice**: This is a built-in method for splitting an array into chunks of a specified size.
2. **Map-based approach**: Using a Map data structure to store the chunked elements, which can be more efficient than Array.prototype.slice.
3. **Library-specific solutions**: Other libraries like Ramda or jQuery might provide their own chunking functions that could be used in place of Lodash.

However, these alternatives are not included in the provided benchmark code and would require separate implementation and testing.

Related benchmarks:

lodash-chunk-vs-custom-chunk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Custom Chunk vs lodash chunk

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Custom Chunk

lodash chunk

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):