Benchmark: intersectionWith vs find in find vs set big

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array.from({length: 10000}, (_, i) => [i])
var b = Array.from({length: 30}, (_, i) => [i * 5 + 99950])

Tests:

intersectionWith
!!_.intersectionWith(a, b, (a, b) => a[0] === b[0]).length
find in find
a.find(aIt => b.find(bIt => a[0] === b[0]))
set
const set = new Set(b) a.find(it => set.has(it[0]))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
intersectionWith
find in find
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches for finding intersection between two arrays: `intersectionWith`, `find in find`, and `set`.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **`intersectionWith`**: This approach uses the `lodash.intersectionWith` function, which returns an array containing only the elements that are common to both input arrays. The callback function is used to define a custom comparison logic.
2. **`find in find`**: This approach uses the `Array.prototype.find()` method twice: first on array `a` and then on the result of the inner `find()` call, which is filtered to match elements in array `b`.
3. **`set`**: This approach creates a new Set object from array `b` and then uses the `Array.prototype.find()` method on array `a`, filtering it to match elements present in the set.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`intersectionWith`**:
	* Pros: Efficient use of built-in functions, potentially faster due to optimized implementation.
	* Cons: Requires Lodash library, which may introduce overhead for some browsers or environments.
2. **`find in find`**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, uses native methods, and can be more readable for some developers.
	* Cons: May be slower than `intersectionWith` due to the additional function calls and iterations.
3. **`set`**:
	* Pros: Uses native Set data structure for efficient lookup, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new Set object from array `b`, which can be slow for large arrays.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a relatively small dataset (`a` with 10,000 elements and `b` with 30 elements) to keep execution times manageable. Larger datasets would likely skew the results in favor of the fastest approach.
* The `RawUAString`, `Browser`, `DevicePlatform`, and `OperatingSystem` fields provide context for the benchmark results, but are not directly relevant to the performance comparison.

**Library Usage**

The test uses Lodash's `intersectionWith` function, which is a utility function that helps with array intersection. The purpose of this library is to provide a convenient way to perform common array operations without having to implement them from scratch.

If you're interested in understanding more about JavaScript array manipulation or Lodash functions, I can provide additional information!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.79 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
intersectionWith	1869.4 Ops/sec
find in find	43.1 Ops/sec
set	4305.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

intersectionWith vs find in find vs set big (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: intersectionWith vs find in find vs set

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

intersectionWith

find in find

set

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):