Benchmark: filter vs compact vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var ops = [null, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, null, null, null, 3, 4,5, 6, 34,341,2,2,2,1,212,21212,34,1,3112, null];

Tests:

lodash filter
_.filter(ops, op => !!op)
lodash compact
_.compact(ops)
Native filter
ops.filter(op => !!op)
Other Native way
ops.filter(Boolean)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash filter
lodash compact
Native filter
Other Native way

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, which compares the performance of three different approaches to filter out null values from an array:

1. **Lodash `filter` method**: The official Lodash library provides a `filter` function that takes a predicate function as its second argument.
2. **Lodash `compact` method**: Another Lodash utility function that removes all falsy values (including null) from an array.
3. **Native implementation using the `Boolean` function**: A simple native implementation that uses the `Boolean` function to test if a value is truthy.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the performance of these three approaches:

* **Lodash `filter` method**: Uses the official Lodash library's `filter` function.
* **Lodash `compact` method**: Employs the Lodash utility function for compacting arrays.
* **Native implementation using `Boolean`**: Utilizes the `Boolean` function to test if a value is truthy.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **Lodash `filter` method**:
	* Pros: Convenient, easy to use, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).
2. **Lodash `compact` method**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and does not require any additional dependencies.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for all developers.
3. **Native implementation using `Boolean`**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, no external dependencies required.
	* Cons: Can be less readable and may not work consistently across browsers.

**Library Explanation**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, the `filter` method is used to remove elements from an array based on a predicate function.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that other test cases may utilize special features or syntax like async/await, Promises, Web Workers, or experimental JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to filtering arrays, consider the following:

* `Array.prototype.filter()`: A built-in array method that can be used with a callback function.
* `Array.prototype.every()` and `Array.prototype.some()`: Built-in array methods that can be used with callback functions.

These alternatives might offer different performance characteristics or trade-offs in terms of readability, maintainability, and complexity.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash filter	3910071.0 Ops/sec
lodash compact	6455549.0 Ops/sec
Native filter	9753914.0 Ops/sec
Other Native way	4279490.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

filter vs compact vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash filter vs lodash compact vs Native filter vs Other Native way

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash filter

lodash compact

Native filter

Other Native way

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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