Benchmark: _Vs_Native - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{ 'n': 31 }, { 'n': 32 }, { 'n': 33 }, { 'n': 1 }, { 'n': 2 }, { 'n': 3 }, { 'n': 21 }, { 'n': 22 }, { 'n': 23 }];

Tests:

_.minBy
_.minBy(values, function(item) { return item.n; });
native
values.sort((a, b) => b.n - a.n)[0];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.minBy
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**What is tested:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of Lodash's `minBy` function with native JavaScript implementation for sorting an array of objects based on a specific property (`n`).

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash's `minBy` function**: This is a utility function provided by the Lodash library, which returns the first element in an array that satisfies a given condition (in this case, having the minimum value of the `n` property).
2. **Native JavaScript implementation**: The native JavaScript implementation uses the built-in `sort()` method and provides a compare function to sort the array based on the `n` property.

**Pros and cons:**

* **Lodash's `minBy` function**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to write and maintain, as it's a pre-built utility function.
		- Less error-prone, as it handles edge cases and NaN values.
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance overhead due to the library's dependencies and overhead.
		- May not be optimized for specific use cases or data types.
* **Native JavaScript implementation**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more efficient, as it only requires a few built-in functions.
		- Can be tailored to specific use cases or data types.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual implementation of the sorting logic, which can be error-prone and harder to maintain.

**Library:**

The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. Lodash provides a collection of utility functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and object manipulation. In this case, `minBy` is used to find the first element in an array that satisfies a given condition.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two implementation approaches for sorting an array of objects based on a specific property.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to compare other implementations, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` with a custom callback function
* Using a library like Ramda or Loom (alternative utility libraries)
* Implementing the sorting logic manually using bitwise operations or other low-level techniques

You can modify the benchmark definition to use these alternatives.

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is designed to focus on JavaScript microbenchmarks, so it's likely that alternative implementations would not be included by default.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.212 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.minBy	3856706.2 Ops/sec
native	3215965.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_Vs_Native (version: 2)

Praveen's benchmark for lodash vs native

Comparing performance of: _.minBy vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.minBy

native

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):