Benchmark: lodash some vs loop (static functions)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.2/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var sample = [1000, 1234, 1222, 3444, 1, 89, 100, 1200, 88888, 99999, 2000000];
var testArray = [];

for (var i = 1000000; i > 0; i--){
	if(i % 3 === 0){
      sample.push[i]
    }
}

for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i ++)
{
  testArray[i] = i;
}

function check(item) {
  return item === 55555;
}

function contains(list, item) {
  if (item && (list && list.length)) {
    for (var i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
      var contains = item === 55555;
      if (contains) {
        return contains;
      }
    }
  }
  return false;
}

Tests:

use for loop
for (var i = 0; i < sample.length; i++) { sample[i] === 55555; }
use lodash some
for (var i = 0; i < sample.length; i++) { _.some(testArray, check); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
use for loop
use lodash some

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_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
use for loop	606128.9 Ops/sec
use lodash some	836.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created using MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using a traditional for loop and using the `lodash.some` function to check if an item exists in an array.

**What is tested?**

In this specific test case, we have a sample array with 10 elements, where only one element (at index 5) contains the value 55555. The benchmark measures the time it takes to iterate through the array and check each element against 55555 using two different approaches:

1. **Traditional for loop**: This approach uses a traditional for loop to iterate through the array and checks each element individually.
2. **Lodash `some` function**: This approach uses the `lodash.some` function, which is a utility function that returns true if at least one element in the array passes the test (in this case, checking if each element is equal to 55555).

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Traditional for loop**: This approach is simple and straightforward but may be slower due to the overhead of the loop and the need to check each element individually.
* **Lodash `some` function**: This approach is more concise and potentially faster because it uses a optimized algorithm that only requires iterating through the array once, checking if at least one element passes the test.

**Pros and cons**

Pros of using a traditional for loop:

* Easy to understand and implement
* No additional dependencies required

Cons of using a traditional for loop:

* May be slower due to overhead of loop and individual checks
* Can be more prone to errors due to manual indexing

Pros of using Lodash `some` function:

* Concise and readable code
* Optimized algorithm can lead to faster performance
* No additional dependencies required (since it's a built-in utility function)

Cons of using Lodash `some` function:

* Additional dependency required (lodash library)
* May have slightly slower performance compared to traditional for loop

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers. The `lodash.some` function is one such helper that checks if at least one element in an array passes a test.

In this specific benchmark, we're using the `lodash.some` function to check if any element in the array contains the value 55555. This approach eliminates the need for manual indexing and loops, making it potentially faster and more concise.

**Special JavaScript feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Using Array.prototype.every()**: Instead of using `some`, you could use the `every()` method to check if all elements pass the test. This approach would be similar to the traditional for loop but with more concise syntax.
* **Using a custom implementation**: You could also implement your own algorithm for checking if an element exists in the array, potentially leading to better performance or control over the iteration process.

However, these alternatives may not provide significant benefits over the existing benchmark and should only be considered if you have specific requirements or constraints that need to be addressed.

Related benchmarks:

lodash some vs loop (static functions) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: use for loop vs use lodash some

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

use for loop

use lodash some

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):