Benchmark: Native vs Lodash.js map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

AخA
 
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

​x
 
var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)​var arr1 = [];//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }​var arr2 = [];for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }​var arr3 = [];//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native

var array2 = arr2.map(function (value, index) {
  return value * 2
})

 
var array2 = arr2.map(function (value, index) {  return value * 2})

lodash

var array2 = _.map(arr2, function (value, index) {
  return value * 2
})

 
var array2 = _.map(arr2, function (value, index) {  return value * 2})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Native
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	0.4 Ops/sec
lodash	3.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

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

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

Native: Using the built-in map function of JavaScript arrays, which is native to the language.
Lodash.js map: Using the _.map function from the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

Options being compared

The size of the input array: three different sizes (100,000, 10,000,000, and 100,000,000) are used to test performance at different scales.
The number of executions per second is measured for each approach.

Pros and Cons

Native (Built-in map function)

Pros:

Native implementation means it's typically faster and more efficient, since it's implemented in the browser's JavaScript engine.
No dependencies or overhead from an external library.

Cons:

Limited functionality compared to Lodash.js map, which provides a broader range of features and options.
May not handle edge cases or complex transformations as well as Lodash.js map.

Lodash.js map

Pros:

Provides a wide range of features and options for data transformation, filtering, and manipulation.
Can handle more complex transformations and edge cases than the built-in map function.

Cons:

Requires an external library dependency, which can introduce overhead and slow down page loads.
May be slower than the native implementation due to the added complexity.

Library used: Lodash.js

Lodash.js is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for common tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The _.map function is part of this library and allows for concise and expressive data transformation.

Special JS feature or syntax

There isn't any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. The focus is on comparing the performance of native map function versus Lodash.js map.

Other alternatives

If you're looking for alternative libraries to Lodash.js, some popular options include:

Ramda: a functional programming library that provides a different set of functions and data structures.
Underscore.js: another utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.js.
Immer: a small and lightweight library for immutable data structures.

Keep in mind that the choice of library depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Native**: Using the built-in `map` function of JavaScript arrays, which is native to the language.
2. **Lodash.js map**: Using the `_.map` function from the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Options being compared**

* The size of the input array: three different sizes (100,000, 10,000,000, and 100,000,000) are used to test performance at different scales.
* The number of executions per second is measured for each approach.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native (Built-in `map` function)**

Pros:

* Native implementation means it's typically faster and more efficient, since it's implemented in the browser's JavaScript engine.
* No dependencies or overhead from an external library.

Cons:

* Limited functionality compared to Lodash.js map, which provides a broader range of features and options.
* May not handle edge cases or complex transformations as well as Lodash.js map.

**Lodash.js map**

Pros:

* Provides a wide range of features and options for data transformation, filtering, and manipulation.
* Can handle more complex transformations and edge cases than the built-in `map` function.

Cons:

* Requires an external library dependency, which can introduce overhead and slow down page loads.
* May be slower than the native implementation due to the added complexity.

**Library used: Lodash.js**

Lodash.js is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for common tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_.map` function is part of this library and allows for concise and expressive data transformation.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There isn't any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmarks. The focus is on comparing the performance of native `map` function versus Lodash.js map.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries to Lodash.js, some popular options include:

* Ramda: a functional programming library that provides a different set of functions and data structures.
* Underscore.js: another utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.js.
* Immer: a small and lightweight library for immutable data structures.

Keep in mind that the choice of library depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Native vs Lodash.js map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):