Benchmark: isMatch vs every

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function dec2hex (dec) {
  return dec < 10
    ? '0' + String(dec)
    : dec.toString(16)
}

function generateId (len) {
  var arr = new Uint8Array((len || 40) / 2)
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(arr)
  return Array.from(arr, dec2hex).join('')
}

var a = []
var b = []
for( let i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
  a[i] = generateId(16)
  b[i] = generateId(16)
}

Tests:

isMatch
const res = _.isMatch([a], [b])
every
const withEvery = a.every(function(item) { return b.includes(item) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
isMatch
every

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

every

441K/s

isMatch

61K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ every	441,262 Ops/sec
isMatch	60,740 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case created on MeasureThat.net. The test aims to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `_.isMatch()` method from the Lodash library and using the `every()` method with an included check for arrays.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Lodash _.isMatch()**: This approach uses the `_.isMatch()` method, which checks if two arrays are deeply equal.
2. **Array.prototype.every() + Array.prototype.includes()**: This approach uses the `every()` method to iterate over the first array and for each item, it checks if any of the second array's elements (using `includes()`) match it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash _.isMatch()**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a simple and readable way to compare arrays.
		+ Optimized for performance and efficiency.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the Lodash library, which may add extra overhead.
		+ May not be suitable for all use cases where a deep equality check is not necessary.
2. **Array.prototype.every() + Array.prototype.includes()**
	* Pros:
		+ Does not require any external libraries or dependencies.
		+ Can be more intuitive and easier to understand for some developers.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient or performant as the `_.isMatch()` method, especially for large arrays.
		+ Requires manual iteration over the array, which can lead to errors.

**Library: Lodash**

The Lodash library provides a set of useful functions for working with JavaScript data structures. In this case, `_` (the Lodash alias) is used to access the `isMatch()` method, which is part of the Lodash library. The Lodash library is widely used in modern web development and can simplify many common tasks.

**Special JS Feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **Using a custom implementation**: One could implement a custom equality check for arrays, similar to what's done with the `every()` + `includes()` approach.
2. **Using other libraries**: There are other libraries available that provide similar functionality to Lodash, such as Ramda or Immutable.js.

**Benchmark Result Interpretation**

The provided benchmark result shows the performance data for each test case:

* The "ExecutionsPerSecond" column displays the average number of executions per second for each browser and device.
* The "TestName" column indicates which approach was used (either `isMatch` or `every`).

By analyzing these results, developers can compare the performance of the two approaches and determine which one is more suitable for their specific use case.

isMatch vs every (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `isMatch vs every`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

isMatch

every

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

isMatch vs every (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: isMatch vs every

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

isMatch

every

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `isMatch vs every`