Benchmark: Test lodash v2 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = _.range(1000);

Tests:

Strict
_.map(_.filter(array, function(n) { return n > 998; }), function(n) { return {test: n}; });
Lazy
_(array).filter(function(n) { return n > 998; }).map(function(n) { return {test: n}; }).value();
Lazy with one function
_(array).reduce(function(acc, n) { if(n > 998) acc.push({test: n}); return acc; }, []);
Strict with one function
_.reduce(array, function(acc, n) { if(n > 998) acc.push({test: n}); return acc; }, []);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Strict
Lazy
Lazy with one function
Strict with one function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark for measuring the performance of different approaches in using the Lodash library, specifically with regards to array filtering and mapping operations.

In each test case, an initial array is created using `_.range(1000)`. Then, one of three different methods are applied to this array:

1. **Lazy**: The `filter` method is used first, which returns a new array containing only the elements that pass the test (in this case, numbers greater than 998). This array is then piped into the `map` method, which creates a new array with the same elements but wrapped in an object with a single property `test`.
2. **Lazy with one function**: Similar to the previous approach, but instead of using the chaining syntax (`_(array) ... .value()`), a single function is defined that takes the filtered array as input and returns the mapped result.
3. **Strict with one function**: This method uses a traditional loop (not shown in the provided JSON) to iterate over the original array and push objects containing `test` property into an accumulator array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

* Lazy chaining
* Lazy with one function
* Strict with one function

These approaches differ in how they handle asynchronous operations, memory management, and syntax complexity.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Lazy chaining**:
	* Pros: Easy to read, concise syntax, efficient memory usage.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating intermediate arrays.
2. **Lazy with one function**:
	* Pros: Still easy to read, but avoids the overhead of creating intermediate arrays.
	* Cons: May require more code complexity and memory allocation for the single function.
3. **Strict with one function**:
	* Pros: Can be faster due to reduced memory allocation and function call overhead.
	* Cons: Requires manual iteration and can lead to more complex code.

**Libraries and Special JS features**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, specifically version 4.16.0. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a collection of high-order functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures.

There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to consider when working with array filtering and mapping operations include:

1. **Native Array methods**: Using native JavaScript methods like `filter()` and `map()` can be a good alternative to Lodash's approach.
2. **Manual iteration**: As seen in the "Strict with one function" approach, manual iteration using a traditional loop can provide fine-grained control over performance but requires more code complexity.
3. **Other utility libraries**: Depending on your specific use case, other utility libraries like Moment.js for date manipulation or Immutable.js for data immutability might be suitable alternatives.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its approaches!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 54 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Strict	80971.5 Ops/sec
Lazy	70372.7 Ops/sec
Lazy with one function	84139.9 Ops/sec
Strict with one function	83615.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test lodash v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Strict vs Lazy vs Lazy with one function vs Strict with one function

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Strict

Lazy

Lazy with one function

Strict with one function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):