Benchmark: [sited] Lodash vs native find

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/node-uuid/1.4.8/uuid.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

// Generate random collection
var data = []
for (var i = 0; i < 5000; i++) {
    data.push({
        name: uuid.v4(),
        number: Math.random() * 1000,
    })
}

Tests:

find-native
data.find(function (o) {return o.name[0] === '0' && o.number > 990})
find-lodash
_.find(data, function (o) {return o.name[0] === '0' && o.number > 990})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find-native
find-lodash

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 break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test for finding an element in an array using two approaches:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This approach uses the built-in `find` method of the Array prototype in JavaScript.
2. **Lodash (Library)**: This approach uses the popular JavaScript utility library Lodash, which provides a `find` function as part of its collection of utility functions.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Native JavaScript**: Uses the built-in `find` method of the Array prototype to find an element in the array.
* **Lodash (Library)**: Uses the `find` function from Lodash to achieve the same result as the native JavaScript approach.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Native JavaScript**

Pros:

* Built-in, so no additional library needs to be included
* Typically faster than using a library due to caching and optimization

Cons:

* May not work correctly in older browsers or environments that don't support the `find` method
* Can be slower for very large arrays due to the overhead of searching the entire array

**Lodash**

Pros:

* Well-maintained and widely used, so can rely on a proven implementation
* Can provide additional functionality and options not available in native JavaScript

Cons:

* Requires including an extra library, which may add overhead or dependencies
* May be slower than native JavaScript due to the added layer of abstraction

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also includes the `uuid` library, which is used to generate unique identifiers for the data elements. The `uuid` library is not strictly necessary for the comparison, but it does add an extra dependency.

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark, so we can focus on the more fundamental aspects of the comparison.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, here are some alternatives:

* Use other JavaScript libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular) instead of Lodash
* Use different search algorithms (e.g., binary search) compared to the linear search used by `find`
* Increase the size and complexity of the data array being searched
* Compare performance across multiple browsers or environments

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.83 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find-native	30300.8 Ops/sec
find-lodash	15873.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

[sited] Lodash vs native find (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: find-native vs find-lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

find-native

find-lodash

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):