Benchmark: Test to string lodash and js

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var n4 = 10000;
var n5 = 100000;
var array4 = [];
var array5 = [];
for(let i = n4; i > 0; i--) {
 array4.push(i); 
}
for(let i = n5; i > 0; i--) {
 array5.push(i); 
}

function toStringLodash(array) {
  _.toString(array);
}

function toStringJS(array) {
  array.toString();
}

Tests:

test toString JS n = 10000
toStringJS(array4);
test toString js n = 100000
toStringLodash(array5);
test toString lodash n = 10000
toStringLodash(array4);
test toString lodash n = 100000
toStringLodash(array5);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test toString JS n = 10000
test toString js n = 100000
test toString lodash n = 10000
test toString lodash n = 100000

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance can be a complex task, but I'll break it down for you.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON defines two functions: `toStringJS` and `toStringLodash`. Both functions take an array as input and attempt to convert it into a string. The main difference between them lies in the library used:

*   `toStringJS(array)` uses the built-in `Array.prototype.toString()` method.
*   `toStringLodash(array)` relies on the popular JavaScript utility library, Lodash.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two approaches to achieve this conversion:

1.  **Built-in Array.prototype.toString()**: This approach leverages the optimized implementation provided by JavaScript's built-in functions. It is generally faster and more efficient since it doesn't require additional dependencies or processing.
2.  **Lodash library (_.toString(array))**: The Lodash library provides a convenient way to achieve string conversion, but it comes with an additional overhead due to its complexity, size, and runtime.

**Pros and Cons:**

1.  **Built-in Array.prototype.toString()**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster execution speed
        *   No dependencies required (just JavaScript)
        *   Optimized by the browser's engine
    *   Cons:
        *   Limited control over the conversion process
        *   May not work as expected with certain types of data
2.  **Lodash library (.toString(array))**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Provides more flexibility and control over the conversion process
        *   Works well with a wide range of data types
        *   Easier to read and maintain due to its concise syntax
    *   Cons:
        *   Slower execution speed compared to the built-in approach
        *   Requires an additional dependency (the Lodash library)

**Other considerations:**

*   The benchmark results are affected by various factors, such as:
    *   Browser version and engine used
    *   Device platform and operating system
    *   Available memory and processing power

**Alternative approaches:**

If you're interested in exploring other options, consider the following alternatives:

1.  **Using a custom implementation**: You could create your own custom function for string conversion, taking into account specific requirements or data types.
2.  **Native modules (WebAssembly)**: WebAssembly provides native code compilation and execution, which can potentially lead to better performance for certain use cases.
3.  **Third-party libraries (e.g., Stringify.js)**: Libraries like Stringify.js offer optimized string conversion functions with minimal overhead.

Please note that the choice of approach depends on your specific needs, requirements, and constraints.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36 Edg/91.0.864.59

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test toString JS n = 10000	2102.4 Ops/sec
test toString js n = 100000	71.5 Ops/sec
test toString lodash n = 10000	2120.3 Ops/sec
test toString lodash n = 100000	84.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test to string lodash and js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test toString JS n = 10000 vs test toString js n = 100000 vs test toString lodash n = 10000 vs test toString lodash n = 100000

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test toString JS n = 10000

test toString js n = 100000

test toString lodash n = 10000

test toString lodash n = 100000

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):