Benchmark: includes() vs _.includes

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [
  [{n: 1}, {n: 2}, {n: 3}, {n: 4}, {n: 5}],
  [{n: 1}, {n: 3}, {n: 5}],
  [{n: 1}, {n: 5}]
];

var targets = [1, 5];

Tests:

Native
arr.forEach(el => targets.includes(el));
Lodash
_.forEach(arr, function(value){ value => _.includes(targets, value.n, 0) });

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 two methods for checking if elements within an array contain a specific value:

* **Native:**  Uses JavaScript's built-in `includes()` method along with a `forEach` loop to iterate through the array and check if each element contains the target values.

* **Lodash:** Utilizes Lodash library's `_.forEach` and `_.includes` functions for the same task.

**Here's a breakdown of the pros and cons:**

**Native Approach:**

* **Pros:**
    * No external dependencies: It relies solely on built-in JavaScript functionality, making it lightweight and straightforward to implement. 
    * Potentially faster in some cases: For simple operations like this, native methods can be highly optimized by the browser's JavaScript engine.

* **Cons:**
    * Can be verbose: The code might appear slightly longer compared to Lodash's more concise syntax.
    * Less feature-rich:  It lacks some advanced functionalities that Lodash provides for array manipulation and other common tasks.

**Lodash Approach:**

* **Pros:**
    * Conciseness: Lodash often offers shorter, more readable code for common operations. 
    * Extensive Functionality: Lodash is a comprehensive utility library with a wide range of functions for data manipulation, string operations, object handling, and more. This can be beneficial if you need to perform other tasks in addition to checking array elements.

* **Cons:**
    * External Dependency: You need to include the Lodash library in your project, which adds some overhead.
    * Potential Performance Overhead:  While Lodash is generally well-optimized, using external libraries can sometimes introduce a slight performance penalty compared to native methods.

**Other Alternatives:**

Beyond these two approaches, you could explore other JavaScript features or libraries depending on your specific needs:

* **Array Methods:** Consider using other built-in array methods like `filter` or `some` for more efficient filtering or checking if elements meet certain criteria.
* **Custom Looping:**  If performance is critical and you have a very specific use case, you could implement your own custom looping logic to optimize the process.

**Key Takeaways:**

* This benchmark highlights the trade-offs between using native JavaScript methods and external libraries like Lodash for common tasks.

* The best approach often depends on factors like project size, performance requirements, code readability, and the need for additional library functionalities.

Related benchmarks:

includes() vs _.includes (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):