Benchmark: lodash reduce vs. native reduce

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var stuff = [
  { name: 'pi', value: 3.14 },
  { name: 'hundred', value: 100 },
  { name: 'truthy', value: true },
  { name: 'falsy', value: false },
  { name: 'estring', value: '2.71828' },
]

Tests:

_.reduce
_.reduce(stuff, (acc, item) => { acc[item.name] = item.value return acc }, {})
native reduce
stuff.reduce((acc, item) => { acc[item.name] = item.value return acc }, {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.reduce
native reduce

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between Lodash's `reduce` function and the native `reduce` method in JavaScript. The test creates an array of objects (`stuff`) and uses both methods to accumulate values in an object, where each key is a property name from the input array.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash's `_reduce` function**: This is a custom implementation of the `reduce` method using Lodash's utility functions.
2. **Native `reduce` method**: This is the built-in `reduce` method provided by JavaScript, which is implemented in the browser's engine (in this case, Chrome).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash's `_reduce` function:**

Pros:

* Provides a consistent API across different browsers and environments.
* Includes additional features like memoization, which can improve performance.

Cons:

* Adds an extra layer of abstraction, potentially leading to overhead due to the library's functionality.
* May not be optimized for specific use cases or edge cases.

**Native `reduce` method:**

Pros:

* Optimized for native execution, with minimal overhead from additional libraries or functions.
* Can take advantage of browser-specific optimizations and caching mechanisms.

Cons:

* Behavior can vary between browsers and versions, potentially leading to inconsistent results.
* Limited control over implementation details, such as the order of operations or caching strategies.

**Library (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string trimming, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `reduce` function is used to implement the `_reduce` method, which allows for a consistent API across different browsers and environments.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, so no additional explanations are needed.

**Other Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks, you might want to consider other options:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides a `reduce` function.
* **Array.prototype.reduce()`: A built-in method in JavaScript that can be used as an alternative to Lodash's `_reduce` function.
* **Other libraries or frameworks**: Depending on the specific use case, other libraries like Ramda, Immutable.js, or functional programming frameworks might provide optimized implementations of `reduce`.

Keep in mind that each option has its trade-offs and potential performance implications. When choosing a library or implementation, consider factors like consistency, maintainability, and optimization for your specific requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.reduce	5285150.5 Ops/sec
native reduce	8418569.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash reduce vs. native reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.reduce vs native reduce

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.reduce

native reduce

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):