Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test lodash 123
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs native
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.10/lodash.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var people = [{id: 30310, skills: ['a', 'b', 'c']}, {id: 100303, skills: ['a', 'c']}, {c: 3040494, skills: ['c']}] var requiredSkills = ['a', 'b', 'c']
Tests:
lodash
_.every(people, (p) => _.includes(requiredSkills, p));
native
people.every((p) => requiredSkills.includes(p));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
native
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark. **Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to check if an array contains all required elements: using Lodash's `_.includes()` function and the native JavaScript method `includes()`. The benchmark compares these two approaches on a sample dataset of people with skills. **Benchmark Options** Two options are being compared: 1. **Lodash ( _.includes() )**: This approach uses the `lodash` library to implement the `includes()` function, which checks if an array contains all elements of a specified array. 2. **Native JavaScript ( includes() )**: This approach uses the built-in JavaScript method `includes()` to check if an array contains all elements of a specified array. **Pros and Cons** **Lodash Approach:** Pros: * Reuses an existing library, which can reduce code duplication and maintainability issues. * May be optimized for performance by the Lodash team. Cons: * Introduces additional overhead due to loading the external library. * Requires manual management of dependency (in this case, loading Lodash from a CDN). **Native JavaScript Approach:** Pros: * Eliminates the need to load an external library. * Provides direct access to the implementation details of the `includes()` method. Cons: * May have performance implications due to the overhead of JavaScript's built-in function invocation. * Requires manual implementation and testing of the `includes()` logic. **Other Considerations** The benchmark also includes information about the test environment, such as the browser, device platform, operating system, and number of executions per second. This data can help identify potential performance variations due to differences in hardware or software configurations. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and functional programming. The `_.includes()` function is part of Lodash's set of array utilities, allowing developers to check if an array contains all elements of another array. **Special JS Feature: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark that require specific handling or explanation. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for measuring the performance of `includes()` include: * Using a pure JavaScript implementation without relying on external libraries. * Implementing a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of both Lodash and native JavaScript methods. * Utilizing different array types, such as Set or Map, to compare their performance. However, these alternatives may not be as straightforward or efficient as using existing libraries like Lodash.
Related benchmarks:
native find vs lodash _.find equal
aadasdsa
lodash set and dot notation
native find vs lodash _.find for objects equality
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?