Benchmark: js lowercase vs uppercase

Script Preparation code:

var test = 'More Text for TESTING'

Tests:

lodash toUpper
test.toLowerCase()
native toUpperCase
test.toUpperCase()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash toUpper
native toUpperCase

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash toUpper	21247772.0 Ops/sec
native toUpperCase	21112582.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to convert a string from lowercase to uppercase: using the built-in `toUpperCase()` method (also known as "native" or "vanilla") and using the popular utility library Lodash's `toUpper` function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native toUpperCase**: This approach uses the built-in `toUpperCase()` method, which is a part of the JavaScript language standard.
2. **Lodash toUpper**: This approach uses the `toUpper` function from the Lodash library, which provides additional functionality for string manipulation.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Native toUpperCase:**

Pros:

* Built-in method, so no external dependency needed
* Typically faster than third-party libraries due to native implementation
* Simple and straightforward code

Cons:

* May not work correctly in all situations (e.g., non-ASCII characters)
* Limited control over output formatting

**Lodash toUpper:**

Pros:

* More robust handling of non-ASCII characters
* Provides additional functionality for string manipulation
* Can be more flexible when working with internationalized strings

Cons:

* Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library)
* May have slower performance due to the added overhead of a third-party library

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Character set**: If you need to work with non-ASCII characters, Lodash's `toUpper` function may be a better choice.
* **Performance**: If speed is critical, the native `toUpperCase()` method may be faster due to its built-in implementation.
* **Code simplicity**: If code readability and maintainability are important, the native approach may be simpler.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers. The `toUpper` function in particular is useful for converting strings to uppercase while preserving non-ASCII characters.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `toUpper` function is compared to the native `toUpperCase()` method. The results show that both approaches have similar performance, but the native method may be slightly faster due to its built-in implementation.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of Lodash requires an external dependency and may not be suitable for all projects.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

js lowercase vs uppercase (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash toUpper vs native toUpperCase

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash toUpper

native toUpperCase

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):