Benchmark: _.includes vs includes()

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = ['mustafa', 'kemal', 'atatürk'];

Tests:

Lodash
_.includes(data, 'kemal');
Native
data.includes('kemal');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 144 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	45968348.0 Ops/sec
Native	181779312.0 Ops/sec

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 an item exists within an array:

* **`_.includes(data, 'kemal')`:** This uses the `includes()` function from the Lodash library. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides many helpful functions beyond what's built into vanilla JavaScript.

* **`data.includes('kemal')`:** This uses the native `includes()` method available in modern JavaScript browsers.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Lodash:**
    * **Pros:**  Offers a consistent and well-tested implementation across different environments, potentially more performant than older browser implementations. 
    * **Cons:** Adds an extra dependency to your project (Lodash library). Can lead to larger bundle sizes if not carefully managed.

* **Native `includes()`:**
    * **Pros:** No additional dependencies. More lightweight and directly integrated with JavaScript. Usually optimized for modern browsers.
    * **Cons:** May have varying performance across older browsers that don't fully support it.

**Considerations:**

* **Project Requirements:**  If your project already relies on Lodash for other functionalities, using `_.includes()` might be convenient and consistent. However, if Lodash isn't used elsewhere, adding it solely for this purpose might not be ideal.
* **Performance Impact:** The benchmark results show that the native `includes()` method is significantly faster in this particular case.
* **Browser Support:**  Native `includes()` has good support in modern browsers.

**Alternatives:**

While less common due to better efficiency, you could explore:

* **Manual Iteration:** Looping through the array yourself with a conditional check (`for` loop or `while` loop). This offers more control but can be significantly slower than both `includes()` methods.

Let me know if you have any other questions about JavaScript benchmarks or this specific example!

Related benchmarks:

_.includes vs includes() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):