Benchmark: Lodash orderby vs sort with slice

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:

_.orderBy
_.orderBy(arr, ["value"]);
array.prototype.sort
arr.slice().sort((a,b) => a.value - b.value);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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 benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking framework, MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares two approaches to sort an array of objects in ascending order: using Lodash's `orderBy` function and using the built-in `sort()` method with a custom compare function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash's `orderBy` function**: This approach uses Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript, to sort the array.
2. **Built-in `sort()` method with custom compare function**: This approach uses the built-in `sort()` method of the Array prototype, which sorts the elements in place according to a user-supplied compare function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash's `orderBy` function**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, efficient (uses optimized sorting algorithms), and flexible.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library to be included in the code, which can add overhead. Some users might not want to include another dependency.
* **Built-in `sort()` method with custom compare function**:
	+ Pros: No additional dependencies required, fast and lightweight, and works well for small arrays.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than Lodash's implementation for larger arrays (due to the need to call a separate sorting algorithm) and less flexible.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.17.5 in its preparation code. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as data manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, it's used for the `orderBy` function, which sorts an array of objects based on a specified key.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the benchmark code. However, some older browsers might not support the use of ES6-style arrow functions (e.g., `arr.push({ value: getRandomInt(100) })`) or modern Array methods like `Array.prototype.sort()`.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to sorting an array of objects could include:

* Using a custom implementation with a simple loop and conditional statements.
* Using another library, such as Moment.js for date-based sorting or jQuery UI's sorting functionality.
* Implementing a hybrid approach that uses Lodash's `orderBy` function for smaller arrays and the built-in `sort()` method for larger ones.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might have different trade-offs in terms of performance, ease of use, and dependencies required.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 12 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.orderBy	11.8 Ops/sec
array.prototype.sort	67.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash orderby vs sort with slice (version: 0)

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.orderBy

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 29 days ago):