Benchmark: lodash intersect vs includes

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['the past','the present','the future','lorem','ipsum','dolor','sit amet']

Tests:

intersection
_.intersection(arr, ['the past'])
includes
_.includes(arr, 'the past')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
intersection
includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
intersection	810260.4 Ops/sec
includes	1294834.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The benchmark compares two operations performed on an array using the Lodash library: `_.intersection(arr, ['the past'])` and `_.includes(arr, 'the past')`. The test case uses a predefined array `arr` containing several strings, including "the past", which is used for both comparisons.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the execution time of these two operations on different browsers. Specifically, it compares:

1. **Intersection**: Returns a new array with elements common to both the original array (`arr`) and the specified array (`['the past']`).
2. **Includes**: Returns `true` if the specified value (`'the past'`) is present in the original array (`arr`).

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Lodash library**: The Lodash library provides a set of functions for functional programming, including `intersection` and `includes`. Using this library allows for concise and efficient code.
2. **Native JavaScript implementation**: By not using the Lodash library, the test case relies on native JavaScript implementations of `intersection` and `includes`.

**Pros and Cons**

Using the Lodash library:

Pros:

* Provides a concise and readable way to perform complex operations
* Reduces boilerplate code
* May be faster due to optimized implementations

Cons:

* Adds dependency on an external library
* May increase bundle size

Native JavaScript implementation:

Pros:

* No dependency on external libraries
* Lighter bundle size
* Can be beneficial for performance-critical code

Cons:

* Requires more verbose and repetitive code
* May lead to less readable and maintainable code

**Lodash Library**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. It provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, object creation, and more.

In this specific case, the `intersection` function returns a new array with elements common to both the original array and the specified array. The `includes` function returns `true` if the specified value is present in the original array.

**Other Considerations**

When testing performance-critical code, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Cache locality: How well do the different implementations cache data?
* Branch prediction: How accurately can branch predictors predict the execution path?
* Loop unrolling and parallelization: Are the implementations optimized for loop unrolling and parallelization?

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to the Lodash library include:

* Underscore.js: Another popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.
* Ramda: A functional programming library that provides a different set of functions for array manipulation, object creation, and more.
* Built-in JavaScript methods: For some operations, built-in JavaScript methods such as `filter()`, `some()`, or `forEach()` can be used instead.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, so it's essential to test them thoroughly in your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

lodash intersect vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: intersection vs includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

intersection

includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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