Benchmark: Lodash vs native (filter)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = []
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
	array.push({ value: i })
}

Tests:

_
_.filter(array, (item) => { return item.n > 5000 })
.f
array.filter((item) => { return item.n > 5000 })
for
const _filter = ( collection, filterCallback, ) => { let index = 0 const result = [] for (const item of collection) { if (filterCallback(item, index, collection)) { result.push(item) } index++ } return result } _filter(array, (item) => { return item.n > 5000 })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_
.f
for

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 break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is responsible for setting up the test environment. In this case, it creates an array of 10,000 objects with a `value` property and pushes them onto the array using a `for` loop. This creates a large dataset that will be used to test various filter operations.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library. This is important because it allows the benchmark to use Lodash's implementation of the `filter()` function.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are three benchmark test cases:

1. **Lodash `_` (underscore)**
	* The benchmark definition uses the Lodash `filter()` function, passing in the array as the first argument and a callback function that returns `true` if the item's `n` property is greater than 5000.
	* This test case is likely using Lodash's optimized implementation of the filter function, which is written in native code and has been tested for performance.
2. **Native `.f`**
	* The benchmark definition uses a standard JavaScript array method, `filter()`, with a similar callback function as above.
	* This test case is testing the native implementation of the filter function, which may not be as optimized as Lodash's version.
3. **Custom "for" loop implementation**
	* The benchmark definition uses a custom implementation of the filter function that iterates over the array using a `for` loop and checks each item against the callback function.
	* This test case is testing a custom implementation of the filter function, which may not be as efficient or optimized as the Lodash or native implementations.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Lodash `_`**
	* Pros: Optimized implementation, likely to be faster than native implementation.
	* Cons: Requires loading an external library (Lodash).
2. **Native `.f`**
	* Pros: No additional dependencies required, simple implementation.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance, may be slower than Lodash implementation.
3. **Custom "for" loop implementation**
	* Pros: Control over the implementation, can potentially optimize for specific use cases.
	* Cons: Requires manual optimization and testing to ensure it's competitive with other implementations.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark is using Lodash, a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers. The `filter()` function is a key part of Lodash, and its implementation is being tested here.

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for implementing the filter function include:

* Other libraries like Ramda or Mocha
* A pure JavaScript implementation without any external dependencies
* A compiled JavaScript implementation using tools like Webpack or Babel

Overall, the benchmark is testing the performance of different implementations of the filter function, including a native implementation, a Lodash implementation, and a custom implementation. The results can help users understand the trade-offs between these different approaches and choose the best one for their specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_	20504.5 Ops/sec
.f	82671.7 Ops/sec
for	131899.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs native (filter) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _ vs .f vs for

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_

.f

for

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):