Benchmark: Lodash.filter vs Native.filter

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Native filter
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering);
Lodash filter by prop
_.filter(data, 'filtering');
Lodash filter by function
_.filter(data, ({ filtering }) => filtering);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter
Lodash filter by prop
Lodash filter by function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance difference between using Lodash's `filter()` function and the native JavaScript `Array.prototype.filter()` method on an array of 1,000,000 objects. The test case checks how long it takes for each approach to filter out all objects that have a specific property (`filtering`) equal to `true`.

**Options compared:**

Two approaches are being tested:

1. **Native filter**: Using the built-in JavaScript method `Array.prototype.filter()` without any additional libraries.
2. **Lodash filter by prop and function**: Using Lodash's `filter()` function with two different configurations:
	* **Filter by prop**: Passing a string literal as the second argument to `filter()`, which is expected to be faster because it's a simple lookup.
	* **Filter by function**: Passing a function as the second argument to `filter()`, which will dynamically evaluate each element in the array and is likely to be slower.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Native filter**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional library overhead.
		+ Fast and efficient, since it's a built-in method.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more manual coding effort for complex filtering logic.
2. **Lodash filter by prop**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster than filter by function due to the simple lookup.
		+ Still uses Lodash, which may be desirable for certain use cases (e.g., when working with a large dataset).
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional library overhead.
3. **Lodash filter by function**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and dynamic filtering logic.
	* Cons:
		+ Likely to be slower than both native filter and Lodash filter by prop due to the function evaluation.

**Library:**

The test uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this case, it's being used for its `filter()` function.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to write similar benchmarks without using Lodash, you could explore other JavaScript libraries like:

* Ramda (another popular utility library)
* Underscore.js (an older library that provides many of the same functions as Lodash)
* Or, if you want to stick with native JavaScript, you could use `Array.prototype.filter()` alone, which would eliminate the need for any additional libraries.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native filter	33.8 Ops/sec
Lodash filter by prop	38.2 Ops/sec
Lodash filter by function	38.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.filter vs Native.filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter vs Lodash filter by prop vs Lodash filter by function

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native filter

Lodash filter by prop

Lodash filter by function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):