Benchmark: lodash each & lodash map & native forEach & native map return v

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}, {d: 6542321}, {e: 13123531}]

Tests:

lodash each
_.each(value, function(v,i) {return v})
lodash map
_.map(value, function(v,i) {return v})
native forEach
value.forEach(function(v,i) {return v})
native map
value.map(function(v,i) {return v})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash each
lodash map
native forEach
native map

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 provided benchmark data and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test created using MeasureThat.net. The test is comparing four different approaches to iterate over an array: native `forEach` and `map` functions from JavaScript, along with two variations of the popular utility library Lodash (`each` and `map`). The goal is to measure which approach performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Comparison Options**

The four options being compared are:

1. **Native `forEach`**: Using the built-in `forEach` function from JavaScript.
2. **Lodash `each`**: Using the Lodash library's `each` function, which provides a more explicit and flexible way to iterate over arrays.
3. **Native `map`**: Using the built-in `map` function from JavaScript.
4. **Lodash `map`**: Using the Lodash library's `map` function, which provides additional functionality beyond what's available in native `map`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Native `forEach`**:
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Limited control over iteration flow, may not work well with arrays of complex objects.
2. **Lodash `each`**:
	* Pros: Provides more flexibility and control over iteration flow, can handle arrays of complex objects.
	* Cons: Requires the Lodash library, which adds a small overhead.
3. **Native `map`**:
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Returns an entirely new array, may not be suitable for operations that require modifying the original array.
4. **Lodash `map`**:
	* Pros: Provides additional functionality beyond native `map`, can handle arrays of complex objects.
	* Cons: Requires the Lodash library, which adds a small overhead.

**Special JS Features and Syntax**

The benchmarking test does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It primarily focuses on comparing the performance of different iteration approaches.

**Library Explanation (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of helper functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, Lodash's `each` and `map` functions are used to provide additional control over iteration flow and to handle arrays of complex objects.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or libraries, here are a few options:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: An alternative to `forEach` and `map`, which can be used to iterate over arrays in a more functional programming style.
3. **For...of loop**: A modern way of iterating over arrays, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.149 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.15.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash each	3166767.8 Ops/sec
lodash map	2980112.2 Ops/sec
native forEach	14033724.0 Ops/sec
native map	10801183.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash each & lodash map & native forEach & native map return v (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash each vs lodash map vs native forEach vs native map

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash each

lodash map

native forEach

native map

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):