Benchmark: topkek - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = "12345"

Tests:

js
value.includes("23")
lodash
_.includes(value, "23")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript expression that tests whether a string contains a specific substring. The two expressions being compared are:

1. `value.includes("23")` (without any library)
2. `_.includes(value, "23")` (with the Lodash library)

**Comparison of Expressions**

* **Without Lodash**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if a string contains a specific substring. It iterates through the characters of the string and returns `true` as soon as it finds the match.
	+ Pros: Simple, lightweight, and widely supported by most browsers.
	+ Cons: May be slower for large strings or complex searches due to its linear scanning approach.
* **With Lodash**: This is a popular utility library that provides various functions for string manipulation, among other things. The `_.includes()` method is a simple way to check if an array contains a specific value (in this case, a string).
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient than the built-in approach due to its optimized implementation.
	+ Cons: Adds unnecessary weight to your application, as it's a separate library that needs to be included.

**Library - Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like:

* String manipulation (e.g., `_.trim()`, `_.indexOf()`),
* Array manipulation (e.g., `_.filter()`, `_.map()`),
* Object manipulation (e.g., `_.keys()`, `_.values()`),
* Functional programming utilities (e.g., `_.map()`, `_.reduce()`).

Lodash is widely used in the JavaScript community, and its functions are often preferred over their native JavaScript equivalents for performance and readability.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax - None**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used here. The expressions are standard JavaScript code that uses built-in methods (for the `includes()` method) and a library (for the Lodash implementation).

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test alternative string containment methods, some options could be:

* Using a regular expression: `value.match(/23/)` (Note: This will match only one occurrence of "23" in the string)
* Using a custom loop or iterative approach
* Using a different library (e.g., underscore.js, moment.js) that provides similar functionality

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the built-in `includes()` method or Lodash's implementation.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/101.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 101 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js	43520700.0 Ops/sec
lodash	15565650.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

topkek (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: js vs lodash

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

js

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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