Benchmark: Lodash find vs Vanilla find

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'barney',  'age': 36, 'active': true },
  { 'user': 'fred',    'age': 40, 'active': false },
  { 'user': 'pebbles', 'age': 1,  'active': true }
];

Tests:

Lodash
_.find(users, ({ age }) => age < 40)
Native
users.find(({ age }) => age < 40)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using the `lodash` library's `find()` method and using the native `Array.prototype.find()` method in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options compared:

1. **Lodash (`_.find()`)**: This is a library that provides a more convenient way to search for an object in an array, with additional features like handling null or undefined values, and support for various iteration methods.
2. **Native (`Array.prototype.find()`)**: This is the built-in method provided by JavaScript's standard library, which allows searching for an object in an array.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash (`_.find()`)**

Pros:

* Easier to read and write, especially for developers not familiar with native methods.
* Provides additional features like handling null or undefined values.
* Can be more efficient due to optimizations by the library.

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead due to the library itself.
* May not be as performant as the native method in certain scenarios.

**Native (`Array.prototype.find()`)**

Pros:

* No extra overhead beyond what's required for JavaScript execution.
* Can be optimized by JavaScript engines, potentially leading to better performance.
* More familiar and lightweight for developers already comfortable with native methods.

Cons:

* May require more complex code due to its syntax.
* Does not provide additional features like handling null or undefined values out of the box.

**Library (`lodash.js`)**

The `lodash` library is a popular utility belt that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including `find()`. In this benchmark, it's used for simplicity and ease of use. The library's implementation of `find()` likely includes optimizations like caching and inlining to improve performance.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript methods and don't rely on ES6+ features, so they can be used by developers with or without knowledge of newer syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to search for an object in an array, some other options include:

* `Array.prototype.some()` and `Array.prototype.every()`, which allow searching for any boolean condition.
* Custom functions written using a similar approach as `find()` or `filter()`.
* Other libraries like `underscore` or `moment.js`, depending on the specific use case.

However, in this benchmark, only `lodash` and native `Array.prototype.find()` are being compared, so these alternatives aren't relevant to the specific test case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_0_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.0 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.0.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	6549472.5 Ops/sec
Native	27552506.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash find vs Vanilla find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):