Benchmark: Lodash find - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [ { a: 100 },
  { a: 101 },
  { a: 102 },
  { a: 103 },
  { a: 104 },
  { a: 105 },
  { a: 106 },
  { a: 107 },
  { a: 108 },
  { a: 109 },
  { a: 110 },
  { a: 111 },
  { a: 112 },
  { a: 113 },
  { a: 114 },
  { a: 115 },
  { a: 116 },
  { a: 117 },
  { a: 118 },
  { a: 119 },
  { a: 120 },
  { a: 121 },
  { a: 122 },
  { a: 123 },
  { a: 124 },
  { a: 125 },
  { a: 126 },
  { a: 127 },
  { a: 128 },
  { a: 129 },
  { a: 130 },
  { a: 131 },
  { a: 132 },
  { a: 133 },
  { a: 134 },
  { a: 135 },
  { a: 136 },
  { a: 137 },
  { a: 138 },
  { a: 139 },
  { a: 140 },
  { a: 141 },
  { a: 142 },
  { a: 143 },
  { a: 144 },
  { a: 145 },
  { a: 146 },
  { a: 147 },
  { a: 148 },
  { a: 149 },
  { a: 150 },
  { a: 151 },
  { a: 152 },
  { a: 153 },
  { a: 154 },
  { a: 155 },
  { a: 156 },
  { a: 157 },
  { a: 158 },
  { a: 159 },
  { a: 160 },
  { a: 161 },
  { a: 162 },
  { a: 163 },
  { a: 164 },
  { a: 165 },
  { a: 166 },
  { a: 167 },
  { a: 168 },
  { a: 169 },
  { a: 170 },
  { a: 171 },
  { a: 172 },
  { a: 173 },
  { a: 174 },
  { a: 175 },
  { a: 176 },
  { a: 177 },
  { a: 178 },
  { a: 179 },
  { a: 180 },
  { a: 181 },
  { a: 182 },
  { a: 183 },
  { a: 184 },
  { a: 185 },
  { a: 186 },
  { a: 187 },
  { a: 188 },
  { a: 189 },
  { a: 190 },
  { a: 191 },
  { a: 192 },
  { a: 193 },
  { a: 194 },
  { a: 195 },
  { a: 196 },
  { a: 197 },
  { a: 198 },
  { a: 199 }];

Tests:

lodash.find
_.find(value, (i) => i.a === 180)
native.find
value.find((i) => i.a === 180)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.find
native.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition consists of two main parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This is a JavaScript code snippet that creates an array `value` with 200 elements, each containing an object with a property `a`. The value of `a` increases consecutively from 100 to 200.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This is a HTML snippet that includes a script tag pointing to the Lodash library (version 4.16.0) hosted on CDN.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash find**: This benchmark tests the `_.find` function from the Lodash library, which takes two arguments: an array (`value`) and a callback function `(i) => i.a === 180`. The callback function is used to filter elements in the array based on the condition `i.a === 180`.
2. **Native find**: This benchmark tests the native JavaScript `find` method on the `value` array, which also takes two arguments: an array (`value`) and a callback function `(i) => i.a === 180`. The callback function is used to filter elements in the array based on the condition `i.a === 180`.

**What's being tested?**

In essence, these benchmarks are testing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Lodash find**: This tests how fast Lodash can find a specific element in the array using its optimized implementation.
2. **Native find**: This tests how fast the native JavaScript `find` method can find an element in the array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Lodash**: Using the `_.find` function from Lodash library.
2. **Native**: Using the built-in JavaScript `find` method on the `value` array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary:

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: Lodash is an established library with optimized implementations, reducing the complexity of filtering arrays.
	+ Cons: Adding overhead due to library dependencies and potential performance trade-offs.
* **Native**:
	+ Pros: Native JavaScript methods are often faster and more efficient than third-party libraries.
	+ Cons: Requires manual implementation of the filtering logic, which can be error-prone.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* **Performance**: If speed is crucial, native `find` might be a better choice. However, if you prioritize ease of use and less code maintenance, Lodash might be a better fit.
* **Complexity**: If your filtering logic is complex or requires multiple conditions, using a library like Lodash can simplify the process.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows two runs for each test case:

1. **Lodash find**: 414236.71875 executions per second
2. **Native find**: 3309630.5 executions per second

These results indicate that native `find` is significantly faster than Lodash in this specific scenario. However, keep in mind that these results might vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

There you have it! A deep dive into JavaScript microbenchmarks.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/71.0.3578.80 Chrome/71.0.3578.80 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chromium 71 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.find	414236.7 Ops/sec
native.find	3309630.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.find vs native.find

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.find

native.find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):