Benchmark: Dashi's tests - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

function getValueAt(object, path) {
  const pathParts = path.split('.');

  return pathParts.reduce((agg, item) => agg && agg[item], object);
}

function orderBy(data, sortKey, sortValue) {
  for (let i = 0; i < sortKey.length; i++) {
    data.sort((a, b) => {
      if (sortValue[i] === 'asc') {
        return getValueAt(a, sortKey[i]) > getValueAt(b, sortKey[i]) ? 1 : 0;
      }

      if (sortValue[i] === 'desc') {
        return getValueAt(b, sortKey[i]) < getValueAt(a, sortKey[i]) ? -1 : 0;
      }
    });
  }
  return data;
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){
  arr.push({data:{value:getRandomInt(100)}});
}

Tests:

_.orderBy
_.orderBy(arr,"data.value", "desc");
custom
orderBy(arr, ["data.value"], ["desc"]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.orderBy
custom

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks is crucial to understand how different approaches and libraries impact execution time.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: `_.orderBy` (using Lodash's `orderBy` function) and `custom` (a custom implementation). The benchmark definition defines a script preparation code, which includes functions to generate random integers and get values at specific paths in an object. The HTML preparation code links to the Lodash library.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of using Lodash's `orderBy` function (`_.orderBy`) versus a custom implementation (`custom`). Both approaches sort an array of objects based on a specific path.

**Pros and Cons**

* **_.orderBy (Lodash)**:
	+ Pros: Highly optimized, tested, and widely used library with extensive documentation.
	+ Cons: Adds dependency on Lodash, might not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., smaller projects).
* **custom**:
	+ Pros: Low overhead, no dependencies, and can be tailored to specific requirements.
	+ Cons: Requires manual implementation of sorting logic, which might lead to errors or performance issues.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* If you need a lightweight solution for small projects or specific use cases, `custom` might be a better choice.
* For larger projects or more complex sorting requirements, Lodash's `orderBy` function is likely a better option due to its proven performance and maintainability.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. The `orderBy` function is part of the `lodash.sortby` module and is used to sort arrays based on specific paths in objects. It's designed to be efficient and flexible while minimizing dependencies.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: Async/Await**

Neither test case explicitly uses async/await syntax, so there are no additional considerations for this feature.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/119.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.orderBy	7.9 Ops/sec
custom	43.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Dashi's tests (version: 0)

test between lodash orderBy and custom

Comparing performance of: _.orderBy vs custom

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.orderBy

custom

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):