Benchmark: lodash _.indexOf vs native indexOf with strings

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 = [
'steve', 'sally', 'sam'
]

Tests:

_.indexOf
_.indexOf(users, 'steve')
array indexOf
users.indexOf('sally')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.indexOf
array indexOf

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches:

1. `lodash _.indexOf`: This uses the Lodash library, which provides a utility function for finding the index of a value in an array.
2. `native indexOf` (or `array.indexOf`): This uses the built-in `indexOf` method on arrays in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Lodash's `_indexOf` function
* The native `indexOf` method on arrays

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash _.indexOf**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a standardized way to find an element in an array across different browsers and environments.
		+ Can be used with any array, not just native JavaScript arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the Lodash library, which may add extra size and complexity.
		+ May have slower performance compared to native methods for specific use cases.
2. **Native indexOf** (or `array.indexOf`):
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and lightweight, as it's a built-in method.
		+ Optimized for specific use cases, such as finding an element in a small array or array with many duplicate elements.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly in older browsers or environments that don't support modern JavaScript features.
		+ Can be slower than Lodash's `_indexOf` for larger arrays.

**Library and Purpose**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a set of helper functions to make common tasks easier. In this case, the `_indexOf` function is used to find the index of a value in an array.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using `Array.prototype.indexOf.call()` (or similar) for native `indexOf` method.
* Using a custom implementation of `indexOf` using loops and indexing.
* Using another library like Underscore.js or Moment.js for alternative implementations.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes:
```javascript
var users = ['steve', 'sally', 'sam'];
```
This defines an array `users` with three elements, which will be used as the input data for the benchmark tests.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to the Lodash library:
```html
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>
```
This loads the Lodash library, which provides the `_indexOf` function used in one of the benchmark tests.

The latest benchmark results show that:

* `array.indexOf` has a higher executions per second (EPs) value than `lodash _.indexOf`, indicating faster performance.
* The raw UA string and other metadata provide insights into the test environment and execution details.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Comparing performance of: _.indexOf vs array indexOf

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.indexOf

array indexOf

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):