Benchmark: Array.prototype.every vs Lodash every_2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = [...Array(100000).keys()];
var ram = Math.floor(100000 * Math.random());

Tests:

Array.prototype.every
array.every(n => n === ram)
Lodash every
_.every(array,n => n === ram)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.every
Lodash every

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 Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of two methods: `Array.prototype.every` and `Lodash every_2`. The `every()` method is a built-in function in JavaScript arrays, while `_.every()` is a function from the Lodash library.

**What are we testing?**

We're testing how efficiently these two methods can iterate over an array of 100,000 elements and check if each element matches a given value (`ram`), which is randomly generated between 0 and 100,000.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of:

1. `Array.prototype.every()`: The built-in JavaScript method for checking if all elements in an array satisfy a condition.
2. `Lodash every_2`: A function from the Lodash library that performs the same operation as `every()` but might be optimized or implemented differently.

**Pros and Cons**

* **JavaScript's `Array.prototype.every()`**: Pros:
	+ Built-in, so it's likely to be well-optimized by JavaScript engines.
	+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
	+ Works on any modern browser or Node.js environment.
Cons:
	+ Might not be optimized for performance compared to Lodash's implementation.
* **Lodash `every_2`**: Pros:
	+ Can potentially be optimized or implemented more efficiently than the built-in method.
	+ Provides a consistent, predictable performance across different browsers and environments.
Cons:
	+ Requires including the Lodash library, which might introduce additional overhead.

**Library used**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library for its `every_2` function. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including array manipulation, data processing, and more.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives to `Array.prototype.every()` or Lodash's `every_2`, you could consider:

1. Using a custom implementation: You can write your own function that iterates over the array and checks each element against the condition.
2. Other libraries: There are other JavaScript libraries, such as Underscore.js, that provide similar functionality to Lodash's `every()` method.
3. Native WebAssembly support: Some modern browsers and Node.js environments support WebAssembly (WASM), which can potentially offer better performance for certain tasks.

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences as a developer.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 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
Array.prototype.every	3623862.5 Ops/sec
Lodash every	2428795.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.every vs Lodash every_2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.every vs Lodash every

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.every

Lodash every

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):