Benchmark: map lodash vs natvie

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-WFN04846sdKMIP5LKNphMaWzU7YpMyCU245etK3g/2ARYbPK9Ub18eG+ljU96qKRCWh+quCY7yefSmlkQw1ANQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2},{a:1}, {a: 2}]

Tests:

lodash map
_.map(data, 'a')
js native map
data.map((n) => n.a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash map
js native map

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 the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: using Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) for mapping an array, versus doing it natively in JavaScript without any external libraries.

**Test Cases**

There are only two test cases:

1. `lodash map`: This test case uses the `_map` function from Lodash to transform the `data` array by extracting the value of the `'a'` property.
2. `js native map`: This test case uses a native JavaScript approach to achieve the same result as the first test case, but without using any external libraries.

**Lodash Library**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `_map` function, which applies a given function to each element of an array and returns a new array with the results. The `_map` function is designed to be fast, efficient, and flexible, making it a popular choice for many JavaScript developers.

**Native JavaScript Approach**

The native JavaScript approach uses the `map()` method, which also transforms an array by applying a given function to each element. However, unlike Lodash's `_map`, this approach does not provide the same level of optimization or caching, which can lead to slower performance in some cases.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Lodash (_map) vs Native JavaScript (`map()`):

* **Pros:**
	+ Lodash provides better performance and caching for repeated calls to `_map`.
	+ It is more flexible, allowing you to pass a custom function as an argument.
	+ It has built-in support for various array data types and edge cases.
* **Cons:**
	+ Requires including an external library (Lodash).
	+ May be overkill for simple use cases where native JavaScript is sufficient.

Native JavaScript (`map()`):

* **Pros:**
	+ Faster startup times since no external libraries are required.
	+ More straightforward to implement and debug, as it relies on built-in methods.
* **Cons:**
	+ Less performant than Lodash's `_map` for large datasets or repeated calls.
	+ Requires more manual error handling and edge case management.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between using Lodash or implementing the native JavaScript approach, consider the following factors:

* Performance requirements: If you need to handle large datasets or high-throughput data processing, Lodash's caching and optimization may be beneficial. For simpler use cases, native JavaScript might suffice.
* Development time and ease of maintenance: Native JavaScript is often easier to implement and debug, but requires more manual effort for edge cases and error handling.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to consider when mapping arrays include:

1. **Array.prototype.filter()`: Can be used in conjunction with Array.prototype.map() or Array.prototype.reduce() to filter and transform arrays.
2. **ES6/ES7+ features**: The `map()` method, `filter()`, and `reduce()` methods are part of the modern JavaScript standard library and provide efficient array transformations without relying on external libraries.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a comparison between Lodash's `_map` function and native JavaScript's `map()` method. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which solution to use based on their specific requirements and constraints.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash map	4272572.5 Ops/sec
js native map	8903671.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

map lodash vs natvie (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash map vs js native map

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash map

js native map

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):