Benchmark: Check for IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs lodash indexOf

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus']

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf('sausage') !== 1
Includes
array.includes('sausage')
lodash includes
_.includes(array, 'sausage')
Lodash indexOf
_.indexOf(array, 'sausage') > 1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash includes
Lodash indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Description**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of different approaches for checking if an element exists in an array: `indexOf`, `includes`, and two variations of `lodash` functions (`_.includes` and `_.indexOf`). The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four options:

1. **Native `indexOf`**: This function checks if a specific element exists in an array by searching from the start of the array.
2. **Native `includes`**: This function checks if a value exists in an array by searching for the exact match.
3. **_lodash includes_**: This is a variant of the `_.includes` function, which is part of the Lodash library. It provides additional features and optimizations compared to the native `includes` function.
4. **_lodash indexOf_**: This is a variant of the `_.indexOf` function, which is part of the Lodash library.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Native `indexOf`**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be as fast as other approaches, especially for large arrays or complex search scenarios.
2. **Native `includes`**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for exact matches.
	* Cons: May be slower than `indexOf` for non-exact matches, and its performance can degrade with very large arrays.
3. **_lodash includes_**:
	* Pros: Provides additional features like support for regex patterns and early returns, which can improve performance in some cases.
	* Cons: Adds overhead due to the library's complexity and may not be as fast as native functions in all scenarios.
4. **_lodash indexOf_**:
	* Pros: Similar to `_lodash includes_`, but optimized for `indexOf` specifically.
	* Cons: May still add unnecessary overhead compared to native functions.

**Library Overview**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functional programming helpers, including string manipulation, array operations, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to implement two optimized versions of `indexOf` and `includes`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches that could be considered for performance testing include:

* Using a custom implementation without relying on built-in functions like `indexOf` and `includes`.
* Comparing different data structures, such as arrays vs. linked lists.
* Testing the performance of optimized algorithms, like binary search or hash tables.
* Measuring the impact of caching, memoization, or other optimization techniques.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the goals and scope of the benchmarking project.

Related benchmarks:

Check for IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs lodash indexOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs Lodash indexOf

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash includes

Lodash indexOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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