Benchmark: native find vs lodash _.find aamurray

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.19/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(min, max) {
  min = Math.ceil(min);
  max = Math.floor(max);
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min)) + min; //The maximum is exclusive and the minimum is inclusive
}

var users = [{
        'user': 'joey',
        'age': 32
    },
    {
        'user': 'ross',
        'age': 41
    },
    {
        'user': 'chandler',
        'age': 39
    }
];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    users.push({
        'user': 'foo',
        'age': getRandomInt(35, 45)
    });
}

Tests:

array find
// Native users.find(function (o) { return o.age < 40; })
_.find
_.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
_.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.97 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array find	14810982.0 Ops/sec
_.find	4076489.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using the native JavaScript `find()` method versus using the Lodash library's `_find()` function. The test case involves searching for users with an age less than 40 in a dynamic array of objects.

**Options Compared**

1. **Native JavaScript `find()` method**: This approach uses the built-in `find()` method on the `users` array, passing a callback function that checks if the user's age is less than 40.
2. **Lodash library's `_find()` function**: This approach uses the Lodash library to perform the same search operation as above.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Native JavaScript `find()` method**:
	* Pros: Typically faster since it's a built-in method, eliminates dependency on external libraries.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance in all browsers or edge cases.
2. **Lodash library's `_find()` function**:
	* Pros: More readable and maintainable code, easier to reuse across different projects. Lodash provides additional utility functions that can simplify other tasks.
	* Cons: Adds external dependency, which may slow down page load times.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of reusable functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string processing, and more. The `_find()` function is part of the core Lodash library and can be used to search for values in arrays based on a callback function.

In this benchmark, the `_.find()` function is used to perform the same search operation as the native JavaScript `find()` method. This allows users to compare the performance of both approaches without modifying their existing code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash or want to explore other options, here are a few alternatives:

1. **Arrow functions**: You can rewrite the `_find()` function using arrow functions, which provide a more concise syntax.
```javascript
_.find(users, (o) => o.age < 40);
```
2. **Destructuring assignment**: Another way to simplify the search operation is by using destructuring assignment:
```javascript
const user = _.find(users, { age: 32 });
if (user && user.age < 40) {
    // ...
}
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same performance benefits as the native JavaScript `find()` method or Lodash's `_find()` function.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its test cases!

Related benchmarks:

native find vs lodash _.find aamurray (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs _.find

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

array find

_.find

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):