Benchmark: R vs _ - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ramda@0.26.1/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.11/lodash.fp.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  _id: 'aCfb6SsPigZQSd6Cl4Bzh',
  email: 'eblo.s.ushami@gmail.com',
  firstName: 'Ебло с ушами',
  patronymic: 'Ильинична',
  gender: 'female',
  createdAt: '2019-10-14T13:32:35.458Z',
  updatedAt: '2019-10-14T13:32:35.458Z',
  __v: 0
}

var pickFields = [ 'email', 'phone', 'firstName', 'lastName', 'patronymic', 'gender', 'dateOfBirth' ]

Tests:

R.pick
R.pick(pickFields, obj)
_.pick
_.pick(obj, pickFields)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
R.pick
_.pick

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to pick specific fields from an object using functional programming.

In this case, we have:

1. `R.pick(pickFields, obj)`: This uses the Ramda library, a popular functional programming library for JavaScript.
2. `_.pick(obj, pickFields)`: This uses the Lodash library, another widely-used utility library for JavaScript.

**What options are compared?**

The two options being tested are:

1. **Ramda's `pick` function**: This function takes two arguments: an array of field names (`pickFields`) and an object (`obj`). It returns a new object with only the specified fields.
2. **Lodash's `_pick` function**: Similar to Ramda's `pick`, but part of Lodash.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons for each approach:

**Ramda's `pick` function:**

Pros:

* Highly optimized and efficient, thanks to its functional programming nature.
* Provides a simple and concise API for picking fields from an object.
* Well-documented and widely adopted in the JavaScript community.

Cons:

* Requires an external library (Ramda) to be included.
* May have a slightly higher overhead due to the need to import an additional library.

**Lodash's `_pick` function:**

Pros:

* Part of Lodash, so no additional library needs to be included.
* Often considered more "JavaScript-y" and familiar for developers already using Lodash.
* Still highly optimized and efficient.

Cons:

* May not be as concise or elegant in its API compared to Ramda's `pick`.
* Has a slightly larger overhead due to the inclusion of the entire Lodash library.

**Other considerations**

Both functions use a similar pattern: passing an array of field names and an object, with the function returning a new object containing only the specified fields. This makes them relatively straightforward to understand and compare.

It's worth noting that both `R.pick` and `_pick` are generally faster than using vanilla JavaScript methods like `Object.assign()` or `Object.keys()`, especially for larger objects with many fields.

**Library descriptions**

* Ramda: A functional programming library for JavaScript, providing a set of higher-order functions to manipulate data in a concise and expressive way.
* Lodash: A utility library for JavaScript, providing a comprehensive set of functions for working with arrays, objects, strings, numbers, and more. `_pick` is part of the Lodash "FP" (Functional Programming) module.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives**

If you don't want to use external libraries like Ramda or Lodash, you can also implement `pick`-like functionality using vanilla JavaScript. One common approach is to use the `Object.fromEntries()` method and filtering on an array of field names:
```javascript
const pick = (fields, obj) => Object.fromEntries(
  fields.map(field => [field, obj[field]])
);
```
This implementation can be more concise but may have slightly higher overhead due to the need for explicit looping.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 77 on Mac OS X 10.15.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
R.pick	1530085.6 Ops/sec
_.pick	1086391.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

R vs _ (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: R.pick vs _.pick

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

R.pick

_.pick

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):