Benchmark: Lodash _.some vs _.includes vs array.find vs array.some vs _.find

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function makeid(length) {
   var result           = '';
   var characters       = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789';
   var charactersLength = characters.length;
   for ( var i = 0; i < length; i++ ) {
      result += characters.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * charactersLength));
   }
   return result;
}

var a = [];

for (let i=0; i<1000000; i++){
     a.push(makeid(15));   
}

Tests:

some
_.some(a, x=>x===a[23424]); _.some(a, x=>x===a[0]); _.some(a, x=>x===a[99999]);
Includes
_.includes(a, a[23424]); _.includes(a, a[0]); _.includes(a, a[99999]);
Find
a.find(x=>x===a[23424]) !== undefined; a.find(x=>x===a[0]) !== undefined; a.find(x=>x===a[99999]) !== undefined;
lodash find
_.find(a, x=>x===a[23424]) !== undefined; _.find(a, x=>x===a[0]) !== undefined; _.find(a, x=>x===a[99999]) !== undefined;
JS Some
a.some(x=>x===a[23424]) !== undefined; a.some(x=>x===a[0]) !== undefined; a.some(x=>x===a[99999]) !== undefined;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
some
Includes
Find
lodash find
JS Some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Includes

474/s

lodash find

376/s

some

372/s

Find

360/s

JS Some

358/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Includes	474 Ops/sec
lodash find	376 Ops/sec
some	372 Ops/sec
Find	360 Ops/sec
JS Some	358 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark described in the provided JSON tests the performance of different methods for checking the presence of an element in an array in JavaScript. Specifically, it compares the following approaches:

1. **`_.some` from Lodash** - A utility library that provides additional functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data types.
2. **`_.includes` from Lodash** - This method checks if a value is present in an array.
3. **`array.find`** - A built-in JavaScript method that returns the value of the first element that satisfies the provided testing function, or `undefined` if no elements satisfy the function.
4. **`_.find` from Lodash** - Similar to `array.find`, but provides some additional functionality and benefits of using Lodash.
5. **`array.some`** - A built-in JavaScript method that tests whether at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function.

### Test Cases Breakdown:

- **`_.some(a, x => x === a[23424]);`** and similar cases:
  - **Pros**: Flexible; it can check for any condition specified in the function.
  - **Cons**: It may be slower than simpler lookups since it evaluates every element until a match is found or the array is exhausted.

- **`_.includes(a, a[23424]);`**:
  - **Pros**: Direct and easy to read; it performs a simple check for the presence of a value.
  - **Cons**: Less versatile compared to the function-based approaches if complex conditions are needed.

- **`array.find(x => x === a[23424]);`** and **`_.find(a, x => x === a[23424]);`**:
  - **Pros**: Great for finding an element based on complex criteria.
  - **Cons**: Returns the found element or `undefined`, which could be less efficient if only checking for existence.

- **`array.some(x => x === a[23424]);`**:
  - **Pros**: Provides an easy syntax and, like `_.some`, allows for a custom test function.
  - **Cons**: This method can be slower than `_.includes` because it still evaluates all elements unless a match is found early.

### Overall Performance Considerations:
From the benchmark results, `_.includes` outperformed the other methods in terms of executions per second. This suggests that for simple element presence checks, Lodash's `_.includes` is likely the best choice in terms of performance. However, if you need more complex conditions to find an element, `_.some` or `array.some` with a custom function might be more appropriate.

### Alternatives:
1. **Native Operator**: You could use the `indexOf` method or the `in` operator for certain cases, but they may not always cover all needs as comprehensively as `_.includes`.
2. **Set or Map**: For large datasets or frequent searches, using a `Set` or `Map` might be a better choice due to their optimized lookup times.
3. **For Loops**: Sometimes, a basic `for` loop might provide better performance, especially in scenarios where early exits are frequent.

In conclusion, the choice of which method to use depends heavily on the specific requirements of the task at hand, such as readability, performance, and the nature of the conditions being tested.

Lodash _.some vs _.includes vs array.find vs array.some vs _.find (version: 1)

Some vs Includes vs array.find

Comparing performance of: `some vs Includes vs Find vs lodash find vs JS Some`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

some

Includes

Find

lodash find

JS Some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Lodash _.some vs _.includes vs array.find vs array.some vs _.find (version: 1)

Some vs Includes vs array.find

Comparing performance of: some vs Includes vs Find vs lodash find vs JS Some

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

some

Includes

Find

lodash find

JS Some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `some vs Includes vs Find vs lodash find vs JS Some`