Benchmark: array IndexOf vs array 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
_.indexOf(array, 'sausage') !== 1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_5 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/103.0.5060.63 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 103 on iOS 15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
IndexOf	20586304.0 Ops/sec
Includes	21658948.0 Ops/sec
lodash	7097785.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmarking code to understand what is being tested.

**Overview**

The `MeasureThat.net` website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares three approaches for searching an array of strings: `indexOf`, `includes`, and a custom implementation using the `lodash` library.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an array `array` with three elements: `'banana'`, `'sausage'`, and `'jesus'`.

```javascript
var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus'];
```

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the `lodash.js` library, which is used in one of the test cases.

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

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **IndexOf**: Tests if `indexOf('sausage')` returns 1.
2. **Includes**: Tests if `includes('sausage')` returns a boolean value (true or false).
3. **lodash**: Tests if `_.indexOf(array, 'sausage') !== 1` using the `lodash` library.

**What is tested**

The benchmark tests the performance of each approach:

*   `indexOf`: The native JavaScript method for finding the index of an element in an array.
*   `includes`: A built-in JavaScript method that checks if an array contains a specified value.
*   `_`.indexOf: A method from the `lodash` library that performs the same operation as `indexOf`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1.  Native JavaScript methods (`indexOf` and `includes`)
2.  The `lodash` library's `_.indexOf` method

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

*   **Native JavaScript methods (indexOf, includes)**:
    *   Pros: Built-in functions with minimal overhead.
    *   Cons: May not be as efficient for large arrays or specific use cases, as they can create unnecessary iterations.
*   **_lodash_.indexOf**: 
    *   Pros: Customizable, potentially more efficient than native methods in some scenarios. Can provide additional features like handling null/undefined values and custom search functions.
    *   Cons: Introduces an extra dependency (the `lodash` library) and may have a slight performance overhead due to the added function call.

**Special considerations**

*   The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, as it focuses on the core functionality of each approach.
*   It's essential to note that the actual performance differences between these methods can be affected by various factors like array size, iteration complexity, and platform-specific optimizations.

Related benchmarks:

array IndexOf vs array Includes vs lodash indexOf (version: 0)

Banana

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):