Benchmark: Lodash Chain vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow, with actual filtering

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();

var data = Array(10000000).fill({ a: 'a', b: 1 });

Tests:

Chain
_.chain(data).filter(f => f.a === 'a').filter(f => f.b === 1).filter(f => f.b + 1 === 3).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a').value()
Native (with &&)
data.filter(f => f.a === 'a' && f.b === 1 && f.b + 1 === 3).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a')
Native (without &&)
data.filter(f => f.a === 'a').filter(f => f.b === 1).filter(f => f.b + 1 === 3).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a')
Flow
fp.flow( fp.filter(f => f.a === 'a'), fp.filter(f => f.b === 1), fp.filter(f => f.b + 1 === 3), fp.map(f => f.a), fp.filter(f => f === 'a') )(data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Chain
Native (with &&)
Native (without &&)
Flow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for filtering data in JavaScript:

1. Lodash Chain
2. Native (with `&&`)
3. Native (without `&&`)

Additionally, a fourth approach using Flow is also included for comparison.

**Lodash Chain**

In this approach, the `chain()` method from Lodash is used to create a pipeline of functions that are applied to the data in sequence. The functions are:

* `filter(f => f.a === 'a')`
* `filter(f => f.b === 1)`
* `filter(f => f.b + 1 === 3)` ( Note: this filter will never match, as it's impossible for `f.b` to be both 1 and 3 at the same time)
* `map(f => f.a)`
* `filter(f => f === 'a')`

The final result is obtained by calling the `value()` method on the chained pipeline.

**Native (with `&&`)**

In this approach, the logical `&&` operator is used to combine multiple conditions in a single filter function. The conditions are:

* `f.a === 'a'`
* `f.b === 1`
* `f.b + 1 === 3`

This approach is similar to Lodash Chain, but uses the native JavaScript operators instead of a separate filtering function.

**Native (without `&&`)**

This approach is identical to Native (with `&&`), except that the conditions are applied in a different order. The order of operations can affect performance, as it may involve more branching or caching.

**Flow**

In this approach, the Flow library is used to define a pipeline of functions that are applied to the data in sequence. The functions are:

* `fp.filter(f => f.a === 'a')`
* `fp.filter(f => f.b === 1)`
* `fp.filter(f => f.b + 1 === 3)` ( Note: this filter will never match, as it's impossible for `f.b` to be both 1 and 3 at the same time)
* `fp.map(f => f.a)`
* `fp.filter(f => f === 'a')`

The final result is obtained by calling the `(data)` method on the chained pipeline.

**Pros and Cons**

Each approach has its pros and cons:

* Lodash Chain:
	+ Pros: Easy to read and maintain, provides a clear separation of concerns between filtering and mapping functions.
	+ Cons: May involve more overhead due to the creation of an intermediate data structure.
* Native (with `&&`):
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, uses native JavaScript operators for performance.
	+ Cons: Can be difficult to read and maintain, especially for complex conditions.
* Native (without `&&`):
	+ Pros: Same as Native (with `&&`) in terms of performance.
	+ Cons: Similar limitations to Native (with `&&`) in terms of readability.
* Flow:
	+ Pros: Provides a clear separation of concerns between filtering and mapping functions, similar to Lodash Chain.
	+ Cons: May require additional setup and configuration due to the use of the Flow library.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Code readability and maintainability
* Performance and efficiency
* Complexity and complexity tolerance
* Additional dependencies or overhead

In general, Lodash Chain provides a clear separation of concerns between filtering and mapping functions, making it easier to read and maintain. However, Native (with `&&`) and Flow provide fast and efficient performance, but may require more expertise to understand and maintain.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider the following options:

* Using native JavaScript methods such as `Array.prototype.filter()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`
* Using a library like React Query or Redux for state management and filtering data
* Implementing custom filtering functions using techniques like memoization or caching

However, keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best solution will depend on your specific use case and requirements.

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Chain	1.1 Ops/sec
Native (with &&)	6.7 Ops/sec
Native (without &&)	1.0 Ops/sec
Flow	1.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash Chain vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow, with actual filtering (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Chain vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Chain

Native (with &&)

Native (without &&)

Flow

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):