Benchmark: Lodash map vs array.prototype.map

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){
  arr.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

Tests:

_.sortBy
const res = _.map(arr,()=>{ "Hello" }); console.log(res)
array.prototype.sort
const res = arr.map(()=>{"Hello"}); console.log(res)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.sortBy
array.prototype.sort

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Windows 8.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.sortBy	353.0 Ops/sec
array.prototype.sort	33.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net:

1. **Lodash `map` vs array.prototype.map**: This test compares the performance of Lodash's `map` function versus the native `array.prototype.map` method.
2. **Lodash `_sortBy` vs array.prototype.sort**: This test compares the performance of Lodash's `_sortBy` function versus the native `array.prototype.sort` method.

**Options Compared**

For each test case:

*   **Lodash `map`:**
    *   The implementation uses Lodash's `map` function, which iterates over an array and applies a provided callback function to each element.
    *   The native `array.prototype.map` method is also used for comparison.
*   **Lodash `_sortBy`:**
    *   The implementation uses Lodash's `_sortBy` function, which sorts an array based on the values of its elements.
    *   The native `array.prototype.sort` method is also used for comparison.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

### Lodash `map`

Pros:

*   **Convenience**: Lodash's `map` function provides a convenient way to iterate over an array and transform its elements, especially when dealing with complex data structures.
*   **Code readability**: The code using Lodash's `map` is often more readable than the equivalent native implementation.

Cons:

*   **Performance overhead**: Using a library like Lodash can introduce performance overhead due to the cost of function calls, object creation, and memory allocation.
*   **Dependency on external libraries**: Your application must include the Lodash library as a dependency, which may add complexity to your build process or increase bundle size.

### Native `array.prototype.map`

Pros:

*   **Native performance**: The native `array.prototype.map` method is typically faster than its Lodash equivalent since it's implemented in C++ and optimized for performance.
*   **No dependencies**: You don't need to include any external libraries, making your application more self-contained.

Cons:

*   **Complexity**: The code using the native `map` method can be more complex and harder to read than its Lodash equivalent.
*   **Fewer features**: Native methods may not provide all the features or functionality offered by their library counterparts.

### Lodash `_sortBy`

Pros:

*   **Convenience**: Lodash's `_sortBy` function provides a convenient way to sort an array based on the values of its elements, especially when dealing with complex data structures.
*   **Code readability**: The code using Lodash's `_sortBy` is often more readable than the equivalent native implementation.

Cons:

### Native `array.prototype.sort`

Pros:

*   **Native performance**: The native `array.prototype.sort` method is typically faster than its Lodash equivalent since it's implemented in C++ and optimized for performance.
*   **No dependencies**: You don't need to include any external libraries, making your application more self-contained.

Cons:

*   **Complexity**: The code using the native `sort` method can be more complex and harder to read than its Lodash equivalent.
*   **Fewer features**: Native methods may not provide all the features or functionality offered by their library counterparts.

**Library Used:**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, object creation, and more. The `_sortBy` function is part of Lodash's sorting module, which helps you sort arrays based on the values of their elements.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to these benchmarks, here are a few options:

*   **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides many similar functions to Lodash, including array manipulation and sorting methods.
*   **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a different set of algorithms and data structures for manipulating arrays, objects, and more.
*   **Native JavaScript implementation:** Depending on your specific use case, you may be able to implement these algorithms using only native JavaScript functions and techniques.

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation depends on your project's requirements, performance needs, and your team's expertise.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash map vs array.prototype.map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.sortBy vs array.prototype.sort

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.sortBy

array.prototype.sort

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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