Benchmark: Array.prototype.find vs Lodash find

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = [...Array(100000).keys()];

Tests:

Array.prototype.find
array.find(n => n === 99999)
Lodash find
_.find(array,n => n === 99999)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.find
Lodash find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.find	11698.5 Ops/sec
Lodash find	1173.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. `Array.prototype.find` (native JavaScript method)
2. `_.find` (a method from the Lodash library)

Both methods are supposed to find the first element in an array that satisfies a certain condition (in this case, `n === 99999`).

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Native JavaScript: `Array.prototype.find`
* Lodash: `_.find`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Native JavaScript (`Array.prototype.find`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in method, so it's likely to be highly optimized by the browser.
		+ No additional library dependencies required.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance overhead due to the need for a function call and a loop to search for the element.
2. **Lodash (`_.find`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance, as Lodash is designed to be fast and efficient.
		+ Allows for more flexibility in terms of the search condition and the type of elements being searched (e.g., objects).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library dependency (`lodash.js`), which may add overhead due to the need for loading and parsing the library.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark is using a fixed-size array of 100,000 elements, which provides a good test case for both methods. The search condition is simple (a single number comparison), which should help to isolate performance differences between the two approaches.

**Lodash library**

In this benchmark, Lodash is being used as a library to provide an alternative implementation of the `find` method. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a range of functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation and data processing. In this case, the `_find` method is being used to search for the first element in the array that satisfies the condition.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses only standard JavaScript methods and syntax.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.find vs Lodash find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.find vs Lodash find

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.find

Lodash find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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