Benchmark: lodash.each vs Object.forEachx

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.10/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.each
_.forEach(value, function(v,i) {})
native
value.forEach(function(v,i) {})
fori
for (var i = 0, len = value.length; i < len; i++) { }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.each
native
fori

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests three approaches to iterate over an array:

1. `_.forEach(value, function(v,i) {})` using Lodash library
2. `value.forEach(function(v,i) {})` (native JavaScript)
3. A custom loop: `for (var i = 0, len = value.length; i < len; i++) {\r\n\r\n}`

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches:

* **Lodash's `_forEach` function**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that provides a safe and efficient way to iterate over arrays.
* **Native JavaScript `forEach` method**: This is a built-in method in JavaScript that allows you to iterate over arrays using a callback function.
* **Custom loop**: A basic loop that iterates over the array elements using an index variable.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Lodash's `_forEach` function**:
	* Pros: Provides a safe and efficient way to iterate over arrays, handles edge cases (e.g., null or undefined values), and is optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires including the Lodash library in your code, which may add unnecessary dependencies.
2. **Native JavaScript `forEach` method**:
	* Pros: Built-in and widely supported, no additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: May have slower performance compared to the custom loop or Lodash's `_forEach` function due to its higher overhead (e.g., checking for null/undefined values).
3. **Custom loop**:
	* Pros: Can provide good performance due to its simplicity and lack of overhead, making it suitable for critical code paths.
	* Cons: Requires manual indexing and bounds checking, which can lead to errors if not implemented correctly.

**Library used**

The `lodash.each` test case uses the Lodash library, specifically the `_forEach` function. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and more. Its `_forEach` function is designed to safely iterate over arrays while handling edge cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in the benchmark. The tests only rely on standard JavaScript syntax and built-in methods.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create similar benchmarks, consider using other libraries or testing approaches, such as:

* Other utility libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda
* Built-in methods from modern JavaScript versions (e.g., `map()`, `filter()`)
* Custom loops or iterators for specific use cases

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches may vary depending on your specific use case, code organization, and optimization techniques.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Mac OS X 10.13.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.each	2362273.0 Ops/sec
native	11009079.0 Ops/sec
fori	11044015.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash.each vs Object.forEachx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.each vs native vs fori

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.each

native

fori

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):