Benchmark: _.filter vs array filter

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [10, 40, 230, 15, 18, 51, 1221]

Tests:

_.filter
_.filter(numbers, num => num % 3 === 0)
array filter
numbers.filter(num => num % 3 === 0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.filter
array 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 break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to filter an array of numbers: using Lodash's `_filter` function and using JavaScript's built-in `filter` method.

**Script Preparation Code:**

This code snippet defines a variable `numbers` which is an array of integers:
```javascript
var numbers = [10, 40, 230, 15, 18, 51, 1221];
```
**Html Preparation Code:**

This line includes the Lodash library from a CDN:
```html
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>
```
**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. `_.filter(numbers, num => num % 3 === 0)`: This line calls the `_filter` function from Lodash on the `numbers` array, filtering out numbers that are not divisible by 3.
2. `numbers.filter(num => num % 3 === 0)`: This line uses JavaScript's built-in `filter` method to achieve the same result as the previous test case.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Lodash's `_filter` function:**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code
		+ Lodash provides a well-maintained and widely-used library for functional programming utilities
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external library to be included, which may add overhead
		+ May not be the most optimal solution for small arrays or simple filtering tasks
2. **JavaScript's built-in `filter` method:**
	* Pros:
		+ No additional libraries required, making it a lightweight option
		+ Built into the language, so no external dependencies to worry about
	* Cons:
		+ May require more code to achieve the same result as Lodash's `_filter`
		+ Less readable or maintainable for complex filtering tasks

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark assumes that both functions will be used with a similar input size and complexity.
* The use of Lodash's `_filter` function may provide additional benefits, such as caching and memoization, which are not present in the JavaScript `filter` method.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None mentioned. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark is using ES6-style arrow functions (`num => num % 3 === 0`) for simplicity and readability.

**Library Used:**

Lodash (version 4.17.11) provides the `_filter` function used in the first test case.

**Device/Platform Considerations:**

The benchmark result includes data from a Chrome 131 browser running on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device, which is an example of the specific device/platform being tested.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.filter	5864810.5 Ops/sec
array filter	17601364.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.filter vs array filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.filter vs array filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.filter

array 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):