Benchmark: lodash.head() vs [0]

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 = [1,2,3];
var e = [];

Tests:

Not empty lodash.head()
_.head(a)
Not empty [0]
a[0]
Empty lodash.head()
_.head(e)
Empty [0]
e[0]
[0] with check
e.length ? e[0] : undefined
[0] with null check
e && e.length ? e[0] : undefined

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Not empty lodash.head()
Not empty [0]
Empty lodash.head()
Empty [0]
[0] with check
[0] with null check

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of `lodash.head()` (a function from the Lodash library) versus accessing the first element of an array using the syntax `[0]`. The goal is to determine if `lodash.head()` is necessary only when checking if the length of the array is not equal to 0.

**Options Compared**

Two main options are compared:

1. **`lodash.head(a)`**: This method returns the first element of the array `a`.
2. **`a[0]`**: Directly accessing the first element of the array `a` using the syntax `[index]`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**`lodash.head(a)`**:

Pros:

* Encapsulates the logic for checking if the array is not empty, making it a more elegant solution.
* Can be useful when working with arrays that may have additional methods or properties.

Cons:

* Adds an extra function call and overhead compared to direct array access.
* May incur additional memory allocations or garbage collection.

**`a[0]`**:

Pros:

* Directly accesses the first element of the array, eliminating unnecessary function calls.
* Typically faster since it only involves a simple array access operation.

Cons:

* Does not encapsulate the logic for checking if the array is empty, making it less readable.
* May require additional checks or conditional statements to handle edge cases.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Lodash library**: Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, object iteration, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash.head()` is used to access the first element of an array.
2. **Null checks**: The benchmark also includes tests with null checks using the syntax `e && e.length ? e[0] : undefined`. This helps evaluate the performance impact of additional null checks.

**Latest Benchmark Results**

The latest results show that, for this specific use case:

* Accessing the first element directly (`a[0]`) is generally faster than using `lodash.head(a)`.
* However, when checking if the array is not empty, using `lodash.head(a)` can be slightly slower due to additional function calls and overhead.

**Alternatives**

For similar use cases, other alternatives might include:

1. **Using a more efficient array access method**: Depending on the specific requirements, alternative methods like `a[0]` or `Array.prototype.at.call(a, 0)`, which is supported in modern browsers and Node.js, may provide better performance.
2. **Implementing custom logic for array checks**: If the use case requires additional checks or logic, a custom implementation using JavaScript's built-in methods (e.g., `a.length` and conditional statements) might be more suitable.
3. **Using a different library or framework**: Depending on the project requirements and performance constraints, other libraries or frameworks like Array.prototype or modern JavaScript features (e.g., destructuring, optional chaining) might offer better solutions.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark's findings and provides insights for optimizing your own JavaScript code!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Not empty lodash.head()	10791127.0 Ops/sec
Not empty [0]	21275334.0 Ops/sec
Empty lodash.head()	10297880.0 Ops/sec
Empty [0]	20057588.0 Ops/sec
[0] with check	10725131.0 Ops/sec
[0] with null check	7206289.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash.head() vs [0] (version: 1)

Is head() needed only to check length !== 0 ? P.s. Empty testcase for [0] is useless because it won't crash on trying to get nonexistent element

Comparing performance of: Not empty lodash.head() vs Not empty [0] vs Empty lodash.head() vs Empty [0] vs [0] with check vs [0] with null check

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Not empty lodash.head()

Not empty [0]

Empty lodash.head()

Empty [0]

[0] with check

[0] with null check

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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