Benchmark: Native vs Lodash.js contains

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native_include
arr2.includes(-100000);
Native_index of
arr2.indexOf(-100000);
lodash
_.includes(arr2, -100000);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native_include
Native_index of
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native_include	304.1 Ops/sec
Native_index of	315.6 Ops/sec
lodash	89.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition json represents a test case where the performance of three different methods (native, Lodash.js, and _.includes) are compared for finding an element in an array with a specific value.

**Tested Options**

The tested options are:

1. **Native**: This option uses the built-in JavaScript array methods `includes()` and `indexOf()`.
2. **Lodash.js**: This option uses the Lodash library's `_includes()` function.
3. **_.includes**: This option is a direct reference to the Lodash library's `_includes()` function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native**:
	* Pros: Built-in methods are usually optimized for performance and can be faster than external libraries.
	* Cons: May not work as expected in all browsers or versions, especially if there are polyfills required.
2. **Lodash.js**:
	* Pros: A well-maintained and widely used library that provides a robust implementation of the `_includes()` function.
	* Cons: Adds an extra layer of complexity and may incur performance overhead due to the need for a separate library.
3. **_.includes**:
	* Pros: Direct access to the Lodash library's optimized implementation, potentially faster than using the `_.includes()` function directly.
	* Cons: May not be as intuitive or familiar to developers who are not already using Lodash.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used for its `_includes()` function. The _.includes() function takes two arguments: the array and the value to search for. In this case, the second argument is a single value (-100000).

The use of Lodash in this benchmark provides a controlled environment for comparing the performance of different methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark definition.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches that could be used to find an element in an array with a specific value include:

* Using `Array.prototype.includes()` and then filtering the result using `Array.prototype.filter()`
* Implementing a custom binary search algorithm
* Using a third-party library like Fast.js or js-arrays

These alternative approaches may offer different performance profiles compared to the native, Lodash.js, and _.includes methods tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Native vs Lodash.js contains (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native_include vs Native_index of vs lodash

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native_include

Native_index of

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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