Benchmark: lodash sortBy vs native sortBy 4.17.21

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){
  arr.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

Tests:

_.sortBy
_.sortBy(arr,"value");
sortByKey
const sortByKey = (array, key) => arr.sort((a,b) => (a[key] > b[key]) ? 1 : (a[key] < b[key]) ? -1 : 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.sortBy
sortByKey

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.sortBy	31.3 Ops/sec
sortByKey	1063943936.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for sorting an array of objects: `lodash.sortBy` and a custom implementation using a lambda function (`sortByKey`). The goal is to measure which approach performs better in terms of execution time.

**Lodash Library**

Lodash (a popular JavaScript library) provides a utility function `sortBy` that can be used to sort an array based on a specified key. In this benchmark, the `lodash.sortBy` function is used with the default implementation.

**Custom Implementation: sortByKey**

The custom implementation (`sortByKey`) sorts an array by comparing each element's property value using a lambda function. This approach allows for more control over the sorting process and can be beneficial if the sorting logic needs to be customized.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash `sortBy`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in implementation with optimized performance
		+ Reduces boilerplate code
	* Cons:
		+ Less control over the sorting process
		+ May not perform well for large or complex datasets
2. **Custom Implementation (`sortByKey`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More control over the sorting process
		+ Can be beneficial for large or complex datasets
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more boilerplate code (lambda function)
		+ May not perform as well as optimized library implementations

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Data complexity**: If your dataset is simple and doesn't require advanced sorting logic, `lodash.sortBy` might be sufficient. For more complex datasets or custom sorting requirements, `sortByKey` might be a better choice.
* **Performance**: If execution speed is crucial, optimized library implementations like `lodash.sortBy` might provide better performance than the custom implementation (`sortByKey`).
* **Code readability and maintainability**: The custom implementation requires more code and can make it harder to understand for some developers. In contrast, `lodash.sortBy` provides a concise and readable way to sort arrays.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for sorting arrays in JavaScript include:

* Using the built-in `Array.prototype.sort()` method with a compare function
* Implementing a custom sorting algorithm (e.g., merge sort, quicksort)
* Utilizing libraries like `underscore.js` or `moment.js` for more advanced sorting capabilities

Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and choosing the right one depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash sortBy vs native sortBy 4.17.21 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.sortBy vs sortByKey

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.sortBy

sortByKey

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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