Benchmark: Lodash vs. Native (find)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

const limit = 10000000;
var array = [];

for (let i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
  array.push(i);
}

function getRandomIndex() {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * array.length)
}

var element = array[getRandomIndex()];

Tests:

Native
array.find(x => x === element);
Lodash
_.find(array, (x) => x === element);

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares the performance of using  `Array.prototype.find()` (native JavaScript) versus `_.find()` from the Lodash library to find a specific element in an array.

**Options Compared:**

* **Native (`array.find(x => x === element);`)**: This uses the built-in `find()` method available in modern JavaScript. It iterates through the array and returns the first element that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, matching the `element` value).
* **Lodash (`_.find(array, (x) => x === element)`)**: This utilizes the `_.find()` function from the Lodash library. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides numerous functions to simplify common tasks.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Native:** 
    * **Pro:** No external dependency, so it's lightweight and generally faster if the browser already has optimized implementations of `find()`.  
    * **Con:** Might not be as feature-rich or performant in all scenarios compared to Lodash.

* **Lodash:**
    * **Pro:** More robust and potentially optimized for performance, especially with larger arrays or complex conditions. Offers additional features and flexibility.
    * **Con:** Introduces an external dependency (Lodash), which can slightly increase bundle size and require additional loading time.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Array Size:** For very small arrays, the performance difference between native `find()` and Lodash's implementation might be negligible. The advantage of Lodash becomes more apparent with larger datasets.
* **Use Case Complexity:** If your search condition involves complex logic or multiple nested operations, Lodash's flexibility and potential optimizations could be beneficial.

**Alternatives:**

While not directly compared in this benchmark, other alternatives for finding elements in an array include:

* `forEach`: Iterate through each element and manually check if it matches the target value. Less efficient than `find()` but might be useful in scenarios where you need to perform additional actions besides simply finding the element.
* `indexOf`: Returns the index of the first occurrence of a value. You would then access the element at that index. Less versatile than `find()` as it doesn't provide a filtering mechanism based on conditions.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs. Native (find) (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):