Benchmark: uniqBy performance and map

HTML Preparation code:

<script>https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.core.js</script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3}, {a: 4}, {a: 5}, {a: 6}, {a: 7}, {a: 8}, {a: 1}];

Tests:

lodash
_.uniqBy(data, 'a');
javascript
const sortBy = (key) => { return (a, b) => (a[key] > b[key]) ? 1 : (b[key] > a[key] ? -1 : 0); }; const uniqBy = (arr, a) => { arr.sort(sortBy(a)); const arr1 = []; arr1.push(arr[0]); for (let index = 1; index < arr.length; index++) { if (arr[index-1] && arr[index -1].a !== arr[index].a) { arr1.push(arr[index]); } } return arr1; } uniqBy(data, 'a')
map
const uniqBy = (arr, predicate) => { const cb = typeof predicate === 'function' ? predicate : (o) => o[predicate]; return [...arr.reduce((map, item) => { const key = (item === null || item === undefined) ? item : cb(item); map.has(key) || map.set(key, item); return map; }, new Map()).values()]; }; const sourceArray = [ { id: 1, name: 'bob' }, { id: 1, name: 'bill' }, null, { id: 1, name: 'bill' } , { id: 2,name: 'silly'}, { id: 2,name: 'billy'}, null, undefined ]; uniqBy(data, 'a')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
javascript
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definitions and explain what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition represents a test case that compares the performance of two approaches: using the `lodash` library's `uniqBy` function versus implementing a custom `uniqBy` function in pure JavaScript.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition consists of three parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code is executed before running the benchmark. In this case, it defines an array `data` with 10 elements.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code is executed before running the benchmark and includes a script tag that loads the `lodash` library version 4.17.15.
3. **Benchmark Definition**: This code represents the actual benchmark test case. There are three benchmark definitions:

* The first one tests the performance of `lodash`'s `uniqBy` function with the `data` array as input.
   * The second one tests a custom implementation of `uniqBy` in pure JavaScript, which is not shown in the provided code snippet.
   * The third one appears to be incorrect and uses an undefined variable `data`. It should be replaced with the correct data array.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Lodash**: Uses the `lodash` library's `uniqBy` function, which is a widely-used utility function for removing duplicates based on a specific key.
2. **Custom JavaScript Implementation**: Implements a custom `uniqBy` function in pure JavaScript, without relying on any external libraries.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-tested and widely-used library with many users contributing to its stability.
		- Optimized for performance.
		- Easy to use and understand, as it follows the Lodash naming convention.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional library dependency.
		- May have a slower startup time due to the initial load of the library.
* **Custom JavaScript Implementation**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional library dependencies or startup overhead.
		- Can be optimized for specific use cases and performance requirements.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more expertise in JavaScript and algorithms.
		- May have slower performance due to the need for custom implementation.

**Other Considerations**

* **Library vs. Roll-your-own**: When deciding between using a library like `lodash` or implementing a custom solution, consider factors such as performance, maintainability, and ease of use. If you're already familiar with the library and its optimization techniques, it might be easier to use `lodash`. However, if you need customization for specific requirements, implementing a custom solution from scratch might be necessary.
* **Testing Framework**: MeasureThat.net is a testing framework specifically designed for JavaScript microbenchmarks. It provides a standardized way of running tests and comparing results across different browsers, devices, and operating systems.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to `lodash` or custom JavaScript implementations include:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that offers similar functionality to `lodash`.
2. **MooTools**: A mature JavaScript framework that includes a utility module with similar functionality to `lodash`.
3. **Pure JavaScript alternatives**: There are other pure JavaScript libraries, such as `Array.prototype.filter()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`, that can be used for removing duplicates based on specific keys.
4. **Native browser implementations**: Some browsers have built-in functions for removing duplicates, such as `Array.prototype.filter()` in modern browsers.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or implementation depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	3740915.2 Ops/sec
javascript	4413749.5 Ops/sec
map	918537.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

uniqBy performance and map (version: 0)

lodash vs javascript

Comparing performance of: lodash vs javascript vs map

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

javascript

map

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):