Benchmark: Lodash vs Native some

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var divisionList = [
  {
    "Name": "Division 1",
    "ParentName": null
  },
  {
    "Name": "Division 2",
    "ParentName": null
  }
];

Tests:

Native
divisionList.some(x => x.Name === "Division 1");
Lodash
_.some(divisionList, x => x.Name === "Division 1");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test between two approaches: native JavaScript and Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library). The test measures the performance difference in using the `some()` method to check if an element in an array meets a certain condition.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This option uses the built-in `some()` method without any additional libraries.
2. **Lodash**: This option uses the `_some()` function from Lodash, which is a wrapper around the native `some()` method.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Native JavaScript**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional dependencies or overhead
		- Built-in functionality reduces memory usage
	+ Cons:
		- May require more manual effort to implement correct logic
		- Performance can be slower due to the overhead of native function calls
* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros:
		- Reduces boilerplate code and makes implementation easier
		- Provides additional features and optimizations (e.g., memoization)
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an extra dependency, which may slow down execution time
		- May introduce overhead due to the wrapper function

**Other considerations:**

* **Library usage**: The test uses Lodash for one of the options. This means that the performance difference will be affected by the overhead of loading and executing the library's code.
* **Native JavaScript features**: Neither option explicitly uses any special native JavaScript features or syntax (e.g., `let`, `const`, arrow functions). However, it's worth noting that some native JavaScript implementations may optimize certain operations differently.

**Benchmark result explanation:**

The latest benchmark result shows two runs with different `ExecutionsPerSecond` values:

* **Native**: 14,246,692 executions per second
* **Lodash**: 4,542,999 executions per second

This suggests that the native JavaScript approach outperforms Lodash in this specific test. However, it's essential to consider the context and possible overhead factors mentioned earlier.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, some options might include:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library similar to Lodash
* **Moment.js**: A library for date and time manipulation (not related to this test)
* **Other native approaches**: Depending on the specific task or library being used, there might be alternative native approaches that reduce overhead or optimize performance

Keep in mind that each benchmark is unique, and results may vary depending on the specific scenario.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Native some (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):