<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>
var a = [{test:'hello'}, {test:'a'}, {test:'bc'}];
var b = a.find(item => item.test === 'bc');
var a = [{test:'hello'}, {test:'a'}, {test:'bc'}];
var b = _.find(a, item => item.test === 'bc');
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
array find | |
_.find |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
array find | 24364980.0 Ops/sec |
_.find | 6646591.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.
Overview
The benchmark compares two approaches to finding an element in an array: using the traditional concat()
method and the new ES6 spread operator (...
). The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods.
Options Compared
Two options are being compared:
...
) to create a new array with a filtered subset of elements.concat()
Method: Using the concat()
method to concatenate an empty array with a filtered subset of elements.Pros and Cons
Both approaches have their trade-offs:
concat()
Method:Library and Purpose
The benchmark uses Lodash.js, a popular utility library for JavaScript. In this case, it's used for the _.find()
method, which is a convenience function that wraps around the Array.prototype.find()
method. The _.find()
method takes an array and a callback function as arguments, returning the first element in the array that satisfies the condition specified by the callback.
Special JS Features or Syntax
There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax.
Other Alternatives
Other alternatives for finding elements in an array include:
Array.prototype.filter()
and then accessing the resulting arrayHowever, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark.
I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.