Benchmark: jsTest - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

native
var array = [ { name: 'lim', age: 26 }, { name: 'kim', age: 28 }, { name: 'choi', age: 32 }, { name: 'park', age: 21 }, ] // native array.find(arr => arr.age < 28)
lodash
var array = [ { name: 'lim', age: 26 }, { name: 'kim', age: 28 }, { name: 'choi', age: 32 }, { name: 'park', age: 21 }, ] // lodash _.find(array, arr => arr.age < 28)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that is being executed multiple times to measure its performance. The code snippet in the "Benchmark Definition" field contains two examples: one using native JavaScript and the other using the Lodash library.

*   Native JavaScript example:
    ```javascript
var array = [
  { name: 'lim', age: 26 },
  { name: 'kim', age: 28 },
  { name: 'choi', age: 32 },
  { name: 'park', age: 21 }
];

// native
array.find(arr => arr.age < 28);
```
*   Lodash library example:
    ```javascript
var array = [
  { name: 'lim', age: 26 },
  { name: 'kim', age: 28 },
  { name: 'choi', age: 32 },
  { name: 'park', age: 21 }
];

// lodash
_.find(array, arr => arr.age < 28);
```

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1.  **Native JavaScript**: The native JavaScript implementation uses the built-in `Array.prototype.find()` method.
2.  **Lodash library**: The Lodash library provides a utility function called `_find()`, which is used to find the first element in an array that passes a test.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Native JavaScript (Array.prototype.find())**
    *   Pros:
        +   Native performance, as it leverages the browser's optimized implementation.
        +   Easy to use and understand.
    *   Cons:
        +   Not available in older browsers that don't support ES6+ features.
        +   May have slower performance compared to native implementations.

*   **Lodash library (_.find())**
    +   Pros:
        +   Widely supported across various browsers, including older ones.
        +   Often used and well-maintained, ensuring consistent behavior.
    *   Cons:
        +   Adds an external dependency (Lodash) to the project.
        +   May have slightly slower performance compared to native implementations.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of native JavaScript versus using a third-party library like Lodash.

If you'd like to explore other alternatives, consider the following:

*   **React Query**: A popular state management library that provides an optimized version of `Array.prototype.find()`.
*   **Underscore.js**: Another utility library that offers a `_find()` function similar to Lodash.
*   **Built-in performance optimizers**: Some browsers offer native performance optimizations for specific array methods, such as `Array.prototype.indexOf()` or `Array.prototype.includes()`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native	48677080.0 Ops/sec
lodash	5607623.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jsTest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):