Benchmark: native find vs lodash _.find

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:

array find
// Native users.find(function (o) { return o.age < 40; })
_.find
_.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
_.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array find	171742128.0 Ops/sec
_.find	89561472.0 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 is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: using the native `find` method in JavaScript with the spread operator (`...`) versus using the `_find` function from the Lodash library. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for finding an element within an array based on a certain condition.

**Native Find vs Lodash _.find**

The native `find` method uses the following syntax:
```javascript
array.find(callback)
```
Where `callback` is a function that returns the desired element or `undefined`.

The Lodash `_find` function uses the following syntax:
```javascript
_.find(array, callback)
```
Both functions take two arguments: `array` and `callback`. The `callback` function takes an element from the array as an argument and returns the desired element.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Native Find**: Using the native `find` method with the spread operator (`...`).
```javascript
const result = users.find(function (o) { return o.age < 40; });
```
2. **Lodash _.find**: Using the `_find` function from Lodash.
```javascript
const result = _.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; });
```
**Pros and Cons**

**Native Find:**

Pros:

* No additional library dependency is required.
* Simple syntax.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of using a native method that is not optimized for performance.
* Limited support for complex callback functions.

**Lodash _.find:**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance and can handle more complex callback functions.
* Provides better error handling and feedback in case no element is found.

Cons:

* Requires an additional library dependency (Lodash).
* May add overhead due to the size of the library file.

**Other Considerations**

* The use of the spread operator (`...`) with native `find` is a relatively new feature that may not be supported by all browsers.
* Lodash is widely used and well-maintained, but it also adds an extra dependency to the project.

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_find` function is used to find an element within an array based on a condition.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two approaches: native `find` with spread operator versus Lodash _.find.

Related benchmarks:

native find vs lodash _.find (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs _.find

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find

_.find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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