Benchmark: Lodash _.some vs _.includes vs array.find

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function makeid(length) {
   var result           = '';
   var characters       = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789';
   var charactersLength = characters.length;
   for ( var i = 0; i < length; i++ ) {
      result += characters.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * charactersLength));
   }
   return result;
}

var a = [];

for (let i=0; i<1000000; i++){
     a.push(makeid(15));   
}

Tests:

some
_.some(a, x=>x===a[23424]); _.some(a, x=>x===a[0]); _.some(a, x=>x===a[99999]);
Includes
_.includes(a, a[23424]); _.includes(a, a[0]); _.includes(a, a[99999]);
Find
a.find(x=>x===a[23424]) !== undefined; a.find(x=>x===a[0]) !== undefined; a.find(x=>x===a[99999]) !== undefined;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
some
Includes
Find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Includes

486/s

some

384/s

Find

367/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Includes	486 Ops/sec
some	384 Ops/sec
Find	367 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case is designed to compare the performance of three different methods for searching an array:

1. `_.some()` (a method from the Lodash library)
2. `_.includes()` (also a method from Lodash)
3. `array.find()` (a native JavaScript method)

**Comparison Methods**

Let's analyze each comparison method:

1. **`_.some(a, x=>x===a[23424])`:**
	* This method checks if any element in the array `a` matches the condition `x === a[23424]`. The `23424` index is randomly generated for each test run.
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only needs to check one element against the condition. Cons: May lead to poor performance if the array size is large, as it has to iterate over all elements.
2. **`_.includes(a, a[23424])`:**
	* This method checks if the array `a` contains an element that matches the value of `a[23424]`.
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, similar to `_some()`, as it uses a similar algorithm under the hood.
	* Cons: Similar to `_some()` in terms of performance, but may be slightly slower due to additional overhead from checking for inclusivity.
3. **`a.find(x=>x===a[23424]) !== undefined`:**
	* This method finds the first element in the array `a` that matches the condition `x === a[23424]`. If no match is found, it returns `undefined`.
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it stops iterating over the array once it finds a match. Cons: May be slower than `_some()` or `_.includes()`, especially for large arrays.
	* Note: This method is not as common as the other two in Lodash's API.

**Library Used**

The test case uses the Lodash library, which provides various utility functions for JavaScript. The `lodash.min.js` file is included in the HTML preparation code to enable these functions.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not specifically use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript and Lodash's API.

**Other Considerations**

* **Data Generation**: The test case generates an array of 1 million random strings, each with a length of 15 characters. This helps to simulate real-world data scenarios where arrays are large and need to be searched efficiently.
* **Browser/Platform**: The benchmark is run on a Chrome browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 platform, which may not be representative of all possible browsers or platforms.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods for searching arrays, here are some options:

* `Array.prototype.indexOf()` (native JavaScript method): Similar to `_.includes()`, but without the additional overhead.
* `Binary search`: If the array is sorted, binary search can be an efficient approach, especially for smaller arrays. However, this requires extra sorting effort upfront.

Keep in mind that the choice of method ultimately depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

If you're interested in exploring more benchmarking scenarios or modifying this one, I'd be happy to help!

Lodash _.some vs _.includes vs array.find (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Some vs Includes vs array.find

Comparing performance of: `some vs Includes vs Find`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

some

Includes

Find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Lodash _.some vs _.includes vs array.find (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Some vs Includes vs array.find

Comparing performance of: some vs Includes vs Find

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

some

Includes

Find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `some vs Includes vs Find`