Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs 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','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsp','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspb','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspc','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspd','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspe','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspf','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspg','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph','TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAspi']

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf('TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph') !== 1
Includes
array.includes('TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph')
lodash
_.includes(array, 'TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph')
lodash indexOf
_.indexOf(array, 'TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph') !== 1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash
lodash indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test on MeasureThat.net. The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of different methods for searching an array:

1. `array.indexOf('TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph')`
2. `array.includes('TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph')`
3. Using the Lodash library's `_.includes(array, 'TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph')` method
4. Using the Lodash library's `_.indexOf(array, 'TCy3Kepn1oZBGmhTsozfYSSfFxVMfAhAsph')` method

**Options Compared:**

* Native JavaScript methods (`array.indexOf()` and `array.includes()`)
* Lodash library's `_.includes()` method
* Lodash library's `_.indexOf()` method

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

1. **Native JavaScript methods (`array.indexOf()` and `array.includes()`)**:
	* Pros: Built-in methods, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: May be slower due to overhead of calling native functions.
2. **Lodash library's `_.includes()` method**:
	* Pros: Provides a consistent interface for including arrays, easy to use, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).
3. **Lodash library's `_.indexOf()` method**:
	* Pros: Similar to native `array.indexOf()` but with more features (e.g., handling null or undefined values).
	* Cons: Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a fixed array of 11 elements, which may not be representative of real-world scenarios.
* The tests are run on Chrome 92 on a Mac with macOS 10.15.7, which may introduce platform-specific biases.

**Library:**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, the `_.includes()` and `_.indexOf()` methods are used to provide an alternative interface to the native `array.includes()` and `array.indexOf()` methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different methods for searching an array, which is a fundamental operation in JavaScript programming.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to Lodash's `_.includes()` and `_.indexOf()` methods could be implemented using other libraries (e.g., underscore.js) or custom implementations using native JavaScript functions. Additionally, some developers might use their own implementation of these methods without relying on external libraries.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.131 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
IndexOf	13374407.0 Ops/sec
Includes	16980652.0 Ops/sec
lodash	2693677.8 Ops/sec
lodash indexOf	5239656.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs vs lodash IndexOf (version: 0)

Test native & lodash

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash vs lodash indexOf

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

lodash indexOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):