Benchmark: Lodash vs 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 fax = 'urn:healthcelerate:faxNumber:1112223333'

Tests:

IndexOf
fax.indexOf('urn:healthcelerate:faxNumber')
Lodash
_.startsWith(fax, 'urn:healthcelerate:faxNumber')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Lodash

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and analyze the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, which are small scripts designed to test specific aspects of JavaScript performance. In this case, we have two benchmarks:

1. `fax.indexOf('urn:healthcelerate:faxNumber')`: This benchmark tests the native `indexOf` method of the `fax` string.
2. `_.startsWith(fax, 'urn:healthcelerate:faxNumber')`: This benchmark tests a function from the Lodash library called `_startsWith`.

**Options Compared**

The two benchmarks compare the performance of:

1. Native JavaScript methods (`indexOf`) against
2. Library functions (Lodash's `_startsWith`)

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript methods (indexOf)**

Pros:

* Built-in to JavaScript, so no external dependencies.
* Typically faster since it doesn't involve function call overhead.

Cons:

* May not be as readable or maintainable for complex string searches.
* Limited to basic string operations.

**Library functions (Lodash's _startsWith)**

Pros:

* More flexible and powerful for string matching.
* Provides additional features, such as handling null/undefined inputs.

Cons:

* External dependency on the Lodash library, which adds overhead.
* May be slower due to function call overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between native JavaScript methods and library functions, consider the following factors:

* Readability: If readability is crucial for your project, a library function might be a better choice, even if it's slower.
* Complexity: For simple string searches, native methods might suffice. However, if you need more complex matching or handling edge cases, a library function might be necessary.
* Performance: For critical performance-critical code, consider the overhead of external libraries and choose native methods.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more. The `_startsWith` function checks if a string starts with a specified prefix.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `_startsWith` function is used to compare its performance against the native `indexOf` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a special feature of JavaScript: **string interpolation**. The variable `fax` is defined as "urn:healthcelerate:faxNumber:1112223333". This allows for string concatenation using template literals, which can improve readability.

However, there's no specific syntax or feature being highlighted in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two simple functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking to measure performance for other JavaScript aspects, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: Tools like Benchmark.js or Fastify can help with benchmarking and performance testing.
2. **JavaScript engines**: Measure performance using different JavaScript engines, such as V8 (Google Chrome), SpiderMonkey (Firefox), or ECMAScript (various browsers).
3. **Microbenchmarking frameworks**: Frameworks like Jest or Mocha provide built-in support for microbenchmarking.

Keep in mind that each benchmark has its unique requirements and considerations, so it's essential to choose the right approach for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs IndexOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Lodash

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):