Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native (filter)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

AخA
 
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

​x
 
var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)​var arr1 = [];//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }​var arr2 = [];for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }​var arr3 = [];//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native

arr2.filter(function (element) {
	return element === 900;
});

 
arr2.filter(function (element) {    return element === 900;});

Lodash.js filter
_.filter(arr2, function (element) { return element === 900; });
_.filter(arr2, function (element) {
return element === 900;
});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.125 Safari/537.36 Edg/84.0.522.59

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	3.8 Ops/sec
Lodash.js filter	3.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

I'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros/cons.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark defines two tests: one native (JavaScript) and another using Lodash.js library. Both tests use the filter() method on an array of numbers generated by pushing values from 0 to a large number (100k, 10M, or 100M).

Native Filter Test

The test creates three arrays (arr1, arr2, arr3) and pushes numbers from 0 to max1, max2, and max3 respectively.
It then uses the native JavaScript filter() method on each array to find a specific element (900) using an anonymous function as the callback.

Lodash.js Filter Test

The test imports Lodash.js library via HTML script tag.
It creates two arrays (arr2) and pushes numbers from 0 to max2 and max3.
It then uses the _filter() function from Lodash.js on each array, passing in arr2 or arr3, and an anonymous function as the callback to find a specific element (900).

Comparison

The two tests are compared to determine which one is faster. The results show that the native JavaScript filter() method outperforms Lodash.js _filter() function.

Pros/Cons of Different Approaches

Native JavaScript filter():

Pros:
- No external library dependency.
- Can be optimized by browsers or JavaScript engines for native execution.
Cons:
- May require more CPU cycles and memory due to the overhead of the filter() method implementation.
- Requires manual handling of edge cases, like null or undefined values.

Lodash.js _filter():

Pros:
- Provides a standardized and maintainable API for filtering arrays.
- Can be optimized by Lodash.js developers for performance.
Cons:
- Requires an external library dependency, which may add overhead.
- May not provide the best native JavaScript execution performance due to the abstraction layer.

Other Considerations

Data size: The benchmark uses large arrays with millions of elements, which can affect performance. Other benchmarks might use smaller datasets or different types of data structures (e.g., linked lists).
Browser/JS engine variations: Different browsers and JavaScript engines may optimize filter() method differently, affecting the results.
Lodash.js version: The benchmark uses an older version of Lodash.js (4.17.4). newer versions might optimize _filter() for better performance.

Alternatives

Other alternatives to native JavaScript filter() or Lodash.js _filter() include:

Vanilla Node.js filter() method
Other external library functions like Array.prototype.filter() from other libraries (e.g., jQuery, Moment.js)
Custom implementation using a different data structure or algorithm.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two tests: one native (JavaScript) and another using Lodash.js library. Both tests use the `filter()` method on an array of numbers generated by pushing values from 0 to a large number (100k, 10M, or 100M).

**Native Filter Test**

* The test creates three arrays (`arr1`, `arr2`, `arr3`) and pushes numbers from 0 to `max1`, `max2`, and `max3` respectively.
* It then uses the native JavaScript `filter()` method on each array to find a specific element (900) using an anonymous function as the callback.

**Lodash.js Filter Test**

* The test imports Lodash.js library via HTML script tag.
* It creates two arrays (`arr2`) and pushes numbers from 0 to `max2` and `max3`.
* It then uses the `_filter()` function from Lodash.js on each array, passing in `arr2` or `arr3`, and an anonymous function as the callback to find a specific element (900).

**Comparison**

The two tests are compared to determine which one is faster. The results show that the native JavaScript `filter()` method outperforms Lodash.js `_filter()` function.

**Pros/Cons of Different Approaches**

Native JavaScript `filter()`:

* Pros:
	+ No external library dependency.
	+ Can be optimized by browsers or JavaScript engines for native execution.
* Cons:
	+ May require more CPU cycles and memory due to the overhead of the `filter()` method implementation.
	+ Requires manual handling of edge cases, like null or undefined values.

Lodash.js `_filter()`:

* Pros:
	+ Provides a standardized and maintainable API for filtering arrays.
	+ Can be optimized by Lodash.js developers for performance.
* Cons:
	+ Requires an external library dependency, which may add overhead.
	+ May not provide the best native JavaScript execution performance due to the abstraction layer.

**Other Considerations**

* Data size: The benchmark uses large arrays with millions of elements, which can affect performance. Other benchmarks might use smaller datasets or different types of data structures (e.g., linked lists).
* Browser/JS engine variations: Different browsers and JavaScript engines may optimize `filter()` method differently, affecting the results.
* Lodash.js version: The benchmark uses an older version of Lodash.js (4.17.4). newer versions might optimize `_filter()` for better performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to native JavaScript `filter()` or Lodash.js `_filter()` include:

* Vanilla Node.js `filter()` method
* Other external library functions like `Array.prototype.filter()` from other libraries (e.g., jQuery, Moment.js)
* Custom implementation using a different data structure or algorithm.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native (filter) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result