Benchmark: find scope compare

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 = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

id find
_.find(users, { age: 41 })
all find
_.find(users, { age: 41, user: "ross" })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
id find
all find

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring performance differences between two approaches: finding an element by its ID (`id find`) and finding an element by multiple criteria (`all find`). The benchmark uses Lodash, a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an array of objects `users` containing information about three individuals:

* Joey (32 years old)
* Ross (41 years old)
* Chandler (39 years old)

This data structure will be used to test the performance of the Lodash `find()` method.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.17.11 from a CDN. This ensures that the benchmark is executed in a consistent environment, as the same version of the library is used by all test browsers.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. `id find`: Tests finding an element by its ID (`age: 41`). The expected output should be the first user object with age 41.
2. `all find`: Tests finding an element by multiple criteria (`age: 41` and `user: "ross"`). The expected output should be the single user object that matches both conditions.

**Browser Comparison**

The latest benchmark results show the execution speed of each test case across different browsers (Chrome 96, Edg 96.0.1054.43) running on a desktop platform with Mac OS X 10.15.7.

**Options Compared**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **`id find`**: Finds an element by its ID.
	* Pros: Simple and efficient when the ID is unique.
	* Cons: May be slower if multiple elements have the same ID or if no matching ID is found.
2. **`all find`**: Finds an element by multiple criteria (ID and other properties).
	* Pros: More robust and accurate, as it considers additional conditions.
	* Cons: Typically slower due to the increased complexity of the search.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash provides a utility function `find()` for searching through arrays or objects. In this benchmark, the `find()` method is used to retrieve elements that match specific conditions.

**JavaScript Features/Syntax (Not applicable)**

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

**Alternatives**

For benchmarks like these, you might consider alternative approaches:

1. **Native array methods**: Use built-in JavaScript array methods like `findIndex()` instead of Lodash's `find()`.
2. **Other library implementations**: Compare the performance of other utility libraries, such as Underscore.js or Ramda.js.
3. **Custom implementation**: Implement your own search function using basic JavaScript and compare its performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require adjustments to the benchmark setup and code.

Related benchmarks:

find scope compare (version: 0)

_.find with one key or more

Comparing performance of: id find vs all find

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

id find

all find

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):