Benchmark: lodash xor alternatives

Script Preparation code:

function dec2hex (dec) {
  return dec < 10
    ? '0' + String(dec)
    : dec.toString(16)
}

function generateId (len) {
  var arr = new Uint8Array((len || 40) / 2)
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(arr)
  return Array.from(arr, dec2hex).join('')
}

var a = []
var b = []
for( let i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
  a[i] = generateId(16)
  b[i] = generateId(16)
}

Tests:

current xor implementation
const res = _.xor(a, _.xor(a,b))
alternative with Sets
var as = new Set(a) var bs = new Set(b) const res = a .filter((row_id) => bs.has(row_id)) .concat(b.filter((row_id) => !as.has(row_id)))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
current xor implementation
alternative with Sets

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 28 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/108.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
current xor implementation	1601.7 Ops/sec
alternative with Sets	8038.8 Ops/sec

lodash xor alternatives (version: 0)

Searching for faster solution for _.xor(a, _.xor(a,b))

Comparing performance of: current xor implementation vs alternative with Sets

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

current xor implementation

alternative with Sets

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A