Benchmark: Perf _.findWhere vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/underscore@1.13.1/underscore-umd-min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function myFindWhere(array, criteria) {
    return array.find(item => Object.keys(criteria).every(key => item[key] === criteria[key]))
}

Tests:

_.findWhere
const array = [{"a":0, "b":1}, {"a":1}, {"b":1}]; const criteria = {"a":0}; _.findWhere(array, criteria);
Native
const array = [{"a":0, "b":1}, {"a":1}, {"b":1}]; const criteria = {"a":0}; myFindWhere(array, criteria);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.findWhere
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Native

32.6M/s

_.findWhere

12.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native	32,559,104 Ops/sec
_.findWhere	12,193,585 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain what's being tested in the provided JSON, describe the options being compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What's being tested:**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different implementations of the `findWhere` function: one implemented using native JavaScript (`myFindWhere`) and another implemented using the popular JavaScript library Underscore.js (`_.findWhere`). The test case consists of a single array with multiple objects, each containing key-value pairs that match or don't match the given criteria.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Native JavaScript (`myFindWhere`):**
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies (no additional library overhead).
		+ Can be optimized for specific use cases and browsers.
		+ Direct access to browser's native functionality.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more manual effort for optimization, error handling, and edge case management.
		+ Can lead to vendor-branching issues across different browsers.
2. **Underscore.js (`_.findWhere`):**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a well-maintained and widely-used implementation with built-in optimizations.
		+ Simplifies the development process by abstracting away low-level details.
		+ Can be used as a drop-in replacement for similar functions in other libraries.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency, which can add overhead to the test environment.
		+ May not provide the same level of customization or optimization as a native implementation.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each implementation, providing insight into their relative performance.
* The RawUAString field contains metadata about the browser and device used to run the test, which can help identify potential biases in the results.
* The DevicePlatform and OperatingSystem fields indicate that the test was run on a desktop device with Windows.

**Underscore.js library:**

The Underscore.js library is a popular JavaScript utility library created by Jeremy Ashkenas. It provides a set of functional programming helpers, including array manipulation functions like `findWhere`. The library is widely used in web development and has been included in MeasureThat.net's benchmark to compare the performance of native implementations against its optimized version.

**Native JavaScript syntax:**

The test code uses a modern JavaScript feature called arrow functions (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). An arrow function is a concise way to define small, one-time-use functions. In this case, the `myFindWhere` function uses an arrow function to simplify its implementation and improve readability.

Overall, MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps software engineers understand the performance differences between native JavaScript implementations and well-established libraries like Underscore.js. This knowledge can inform design decisions and optimization strategies when working with JavaScript-based projects.

Perf _.findWhere vs Native (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `_.findWhere vs Native`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

_.findWhere

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Perf _.findWhere vs Native (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: _.findWhere vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

_.findWhere

Native

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: `_.findWhere vs Native`