Benchmark: JS vs Lodash - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['Alpha', 'Beta', 'Gamma', 'Pi', 'Delta', 'Iota', 'Xi', 'Theta', 'Pista', 'Géza'];
var array2 = ['Xi'];
var data = 'Xi';

Tests:

JS
array.length === 1 && array[0] === data; array2.length === 1 && array2[0] === data;
JS find
array.length === 1 && array.find(a => a === data); array2.length === 1 && array2.find(a => a === data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS
JS find

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 provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code that uses two different approaches to check if an array contains a specific element:

1. **JS**: `array.length === 1 && array[0] === data`
2. **JS find**: `array.length === 1 && array.find(a => a === data)`

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to check if an array contains a single element with a specific value. The first approach uses direct indexing (`array[0]`) and the second approach uses the `find()` method.

**Options compared:**

* **Direct Indexing**: Using the index 0 to access the element in the array.
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and straightforward.
		- Fast for small arrays or when the element is at a known index.
	+ Cons:
		- May cause errors if the index is out of bounds.
		- May be slower than other approaches for large arrays.
* **Find() Method**: Using the `find()` method to search for an element in the array that satisfies a callback function.
	+ Pros:
		- Flexible and efficient for searching elements with complex conditions.
		- Can handle arrays of any size.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than direct indexing for small arrays or when the element is at a known index.
		- Creates an intermediate array, which may consume memory.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses Lodash library for the `find()` method. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more. In this case, it's used to simplify the implementation of the `find()` method.
* The benchmark doesn't consider other approaches like using `some()`, `every()`, or `indexOf()`.

**Individual test cases:**

The two individual test cases measure the performance of each approach:

1. **JS**: Measures the performance of direct indexing (`array[0] === data`) to check if an array contains a single element with a specific value.
2. **JS find**: Measures the performance of using the `find()` method with a callback function (`a => a === data`) to search for an element in the array.

**Latest benchmark result:**
The latest benchmark result shows that the `JS find` approach is faster than direct indexing (`JS`) on this specific test case, with an execution rate of approximately 1049 executions per second compared to 2201212 executions per second for direct indexing.

Related benchmarks:

JS vs Lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS vs JS find

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS

JS find

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):