Benchmark: Promo Find - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<html>
    <head>
        <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js"></script>
        <script>
        underscore = _;
        </script>


        <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.12.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

        <script>
        lodash = _;
        </script>
    </head>
    <body>
    </body>
</html>

Script Preparation code:

var PromosArray = [
    {
        type: "regular",
        display: "$123.00"
    },
    {
        type: "markdown",
        display: "$100.00"
    },
    {
        type: "promo",
        display: "$80.00"
    }
];

var PromosObject = {
    regular: "$123.00",
    markdown: "$100.00",
    promo: "$80.00"
};

function find(array, type) {
    for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
        if (array[i]["type"] === type) {
            return array[i];
        }
    }

    return undefined;
}

function testArrayFind() {
    find(PromosArray, "regular");
    find(PromosArray, "markdown");
    find(PromosArray, "promo");
}

function testObjectFind() {
    var foo = PromosObject.regular;
    var foo = PromosObject.markdown;
    var foo = PromosObject.promo;
}

function testUnderscoreFind() {
    underscore.find(PromosArray, "type", "regular");
    underscore.find(PromosArray, "type", "markdown");
    underscore.find(PromosArray, "type", "promo");
}

function testLodashFind() {
    lodash.find(PromosArray, "type", "regular");
    lodash.find(PromosArray, "type", "markdown");
    lodash.find(PromosArray, "type", "promo");
}

Tests:

testArrayFind();
testArrayFind();
testObjectFind();
testObjectFind();
testUnderscoreFind();
testUnderscoreFind();
testLodashFind();
testLodashFind();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
testArrayFind();
testObjectFind();
testUnderscoreFind();
testLodashFind();

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/41.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 41 on Mac OS X 10.11

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
testArrayFind();	41377572.0 Ops/sec
testObjectFind();	122322600.0 Ops/sec
testUnderscoreFind();	4491427.5 Ops/sec
testLodashFind();	3408219.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance differences between various JavaScript functions is a complex task, but I'll break it down for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. In this case, there are four test cases:

1. `testArrayFind()`: This function uses a simple array-based approach to find an element in the `PromosArray` array. It iterates through each element and checks if its `type` property matches the specified value.
2. `testObjectFind()`: This function uses a similar approach, but it accesses object properties directly on the `PromosObject` object instead of using an array-based index.
3. `testUnderscoreFind()` and `testLodashFind()`: These functions use external libraries, Underscore.js and Lodash.js, respectively, to perform the same operation as `testArrayFind()`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance differences between:

* The built-in JavaScript array-based approach (`testArrayFind()`)
* The object-based approach (`testObjectFind()`)
* Two external libraries: Underscore.js and Lodash.js

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Built-in JavaScript array-based approach (testArrayFind())**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and lightweight
		+ Easy to understand and implement
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient for large datasets or complex operations
2. **Object-based approach (testObjectFind())**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster for large datasets due to caching and memoization
		+ More intuitive for object-oriented programming
	* Cons:
		+ Requires access to the `PromosObject` object, which may not be available in all contexts
3. **Underscore.js approach (testUnderscoreFind())**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient due to optimized implementation
		+ Easy to use and understand
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external library dependency
4. **Lodash.js approach (testLodashFind())**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient due to optimized implementation
		+ Easy to use and understand
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external library dependency

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

1. **Performance**: If speed is crucial, the built-in JavaScript array-based approach or one of the external library approaches (Underscore.js or Lodash.js) might be a better choice.
2. **Readability and maintainability**: The object-based approach (`testObjectFind()`) can be more intuitive for developers familiar with object-oriented programming, while the built-in JavaScript array-based approach is straightforward.
3. **Context**: Consider whether the `PromosObject` is available in the context where the function will be used. If not, the object-based approach may not work as expected.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **Underscore.js**: A lightweight utility library for functional programming. It provides a small set of functions for tasks like array manipulation and string manipulation.
2. **Lodash.js**: A comprehensive utility library that builds upon Underscore.js. It provides a wider range of functions for tasks like data manipulation, function composition, and more.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what is typically available in modern JavaScript implementations (ECMAScript 2015+).

Related benchmarks:

Promo Find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: testArrayFind(); vs testObjectFind(); vs testUnderscoreFind(); vs testLodashFind();

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

testArrayFind();

testObjectFind();

testUnderscoreFind();

testLodashFind();

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):