Benchmark: native indexOf vs lodash _.indexOf

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

array find
users.indexOf(elem => elem.age < 40);
_.find
_.indexOf(users, elem => elem.age < 40)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
_.find

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 break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Native `indexOf` method**: This is a built-in JavaScript method for finding the index of a specific value in an array. In this case, it's used to find the index of the first element in the `users` array where the `age` property is less than 40.
2. **Lodash _.indexOf** and _.find**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides utility functions for tasks like array manipulation. In this case, it's used for its `_.indexOf` and `_._find` methods, which are similar to the native `indexOf` method but provide more flexibility.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Native `indexOf` (in JavaScript)
* Lodash _.indexOf (using Lodash library)

**Pros and Cons**

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

**Native `indexOf`**

Pros:

* Built-in, so no additional library is required
* Likely to be more efficient since it doesn't introduce any overhead from a third-party library

Cons:

* May not provide the same level of flexibility as Lodash _.indexOf, especially for complex array operations
* May not work well with certain data structures or edge cases

**Lodash _.indexOf**

Pros:

* Provides more flexibility and control over the search operation
* Can handle complex array operations and edge cases

Cons:

* Requires an additional library (Lodash) to be loaded
* May introduce some overhead compared to native `indexOf`

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark also compares two specific methods:
	+ Lodash _.find: This method finds the first element in an array that satisfies a condition. It's similar to _.indexOf but returns the found element instead of its index.
	+ Native `elem => elem.age < 40`: This is a custom callback function that takes an element as an argument and returns a boolean indicating whether it meets the specified condition. It's used with both native `indexOf` and Lodash _.indexOf.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides utility functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, it's used to provide two additional methods: _.indexOf and _.find. These methods are similar to the native `indexOf` method but offer more flexibility and control over the search operation.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different approaches to find an element in an array, which is a basic yet common operation in many programming contexts.

**Alternatives**

If you were to run this benchmark on your own machine, you could try the following alternatives:

* Compare the performance of native `indexOf` against Lodash _.indexOf without using _.find.
* Add more test cases to compare with other array methods, such as Array.prototype.findIndex() or some custom implementation using a for loop.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark JSON and the test code to accommodate your specific requirements.

Related benchmarks:

native indexOf vs lodash _.indexOf (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs _.find

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find

_.find

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):