Benchmark: lodash vs native uppercase

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var test = 'lkjskljdlskjdlsdjslkdjsljdlksjd'

Tests:

lodash toUpper
_.toUpper(test)
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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: using the built-in `toUpperCase()` method of JavaScript strings (the "native" approach) versus using the `_.toUpper()` function from the Lodash library. The goal is to measure which approach is faster.

**Options compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Native Approach**: Using the built-in `toUpperCase()` method, which is a part of the JavaScript language.
2. **Lodash Approach**: Using the `_.toUpper()` function from the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native Approach**
	+ Pros: Built-in functionality, likely to be well-optimized by JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons: May not be as flexible or powerful as other libraries like Lodash.
* **Lodash Approach**
	+ Pros: More flexible and powerful than the native approach, but may come with additional overhead due to the library's presence.
	+ Cons: Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which may slow down page load times.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, the `_.toUpper()` function from the Lodash library is used. The Lodash library provides a collection of high-quality, consistently-tested functions that make common programming tasks easier and more efficient. In this case, it's being used to provide a more flexible alternative to the built-in `toUpperCase()` method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing two approaches: using the native `toUpperCase()` method versus using the Lodash library.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark to compare other approaches, here are some alternative options:

* Using a different string manipulation function from another library (e.g., jQuery's `.trim()` vs. the native `replace()` method).
* Comparing the performance of a custom implementation versus the built-in `toUpperCase()` method.
* Testing multiple iterations or permutations of the same basic approach (e.g., comparing `_.toUpper()` with different input lengths or character sets).

Keep in mind that when modifying the benchmark, it's essential to ensure that any new alternatives are still representative of real-world use cases and provide meaningful results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/130.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash toUpper	5575591.0 Ops/sec
native toUpperCase	11090025.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs native uppercase (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash toUpper vs native toUpperCase

Created: 4 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 27 days ago):