Benchmark: filter vs compact enhanced

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var ops = [null, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, null, null, null, 3, 4,5, 6, 34,341,2,2,2,1,212,21212,34,1,3112, null];

Tests:

warm up (ignore me)
_.map(ops, op => op)
lodash compact
_.compact(ops)
lodash filter
_.filter(ops, op => op)
Native filter
ops.filter(op => op)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
warm up (ignore me)
lodash compact
lodash filter
Native filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, where users can compare the performance of different approaches for filtering or compacting an array. The test cases are:

1. Lodash `map` function with warm-up
2. Lodash `compact` function
3. Lodash `filter` function
4. Native `filter` function (without using a library)

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of four options:

* Lodash's `map` function with warm-up
* Lodash's `compact` function
* Lodash's `filter` function
* Native JavaScript `filter` function

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash `map` function**: This approach is useful when you need to perform an operation on each element in the array, but it has a higher overhead due to the use of the `map` function. Pros: concise code, easy to read; Cons: may have performance overhead.
2. **Lodash `compact` function**: This approach is ideal for removing empty elements from an array. The Lodash implementation uses a single pass through the array, which is efficient. Pros: fast, simple, and concise; Cons: might not be suitable for more complex filtering scenarios.
3. **Native JavaScript `filter` function**: This approach is the most straightforward way to filter an array in JavaScript. It has a relatively low overhead compared to the Lodash implementation. Pros: lightweight, easy to understand; Cons: may have performance overhead if used incorrectly (e.g., using it for complex filtering).
4. **Lodash `filter` function**: Similar to the native JavaScript implementation, this approach is concise and easy to read. However, it might have a slight performance overhead due to the use of the `filter` function. Pros: readable code; Cons: may not be the most efficient.

**Library usage**

The Lodash library is used in three out of four test cases. Lodash provides a set of utility functions that can be reused across different projects, making it convenient for developers. The `_` prefix is commonly used to denote functions from the Lodash library.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark, but it's worth noting that other benchmarks might use more advanced features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers.

**Alternatives**

If you're not using Lodash and want to filter arrays manually, you can use the native `filter` function. However, be mindful of its performance characteristics, especially when dealing with large arrays or complex filtering scenarios. If you need more advanced array manipulation functions, you might consider using a library like Ramda or another utility belt.

Keep in mind that benchmarking results may vary depending on specific use cases and environments. These tests provide a general idea of the relative performance differences between these approaches, but your own measurements might differ.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
warm up (ignore me)	2799927.2 Ops/sec
lodash compact	2433506.2 Ops/sec
lodash filter	1991376.5 Ops/sec
Native filter	2445025.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

filter vs compact enhanced (version: 0)

from "filter vs compact" but with warmup and without `!!` type casts

Comparing performance of: warm up (ignore me) vs lodash compact vs lodash filter vs Native filter

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

warm up (ignore me)

lodash compact

lodash filter

Native filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):