Benchmark: my test lodash vs native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

lodash
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'] /* Lodash */ var result = _.indexOf(array, 'd') > -1
es6
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'] /* ES6 */ var result = array.indexOf('d') > -1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
es6

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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. Using the Lodash library (a popular JavaScript utility library) to find the index of a value in an array.
2. Using the native JavaScript `indexOf` method (introduced in ECMAScript 6, ES6) to achieve the same result.

**Test Case 1: Lodash**

The test case uses the Lodash library, which provides a variety of useful functions for working with arrays, objects, and more. In this case, it's being used to find the index of the value `'d'` in an array using the `_.indexOf` method.

**Pros of using Lodash:**

* Convenience: Lodash provides a simple and easy-to-use API for finding indices and performing other common array operations.
* Utility functions: Lodash includes many useful utility functions that can be used beyond just indexing arrays, such as `map`, `filter`, and more.

**Cons of using Lodash:**

* Performance overhead: Using a library like Lodash may introduce additional latency due to the need to load and initialize the library, even if it's not actually being used.
* Dependency on external resources: The test case relies on the presence of the Lodash library being loaded from an external source (in this case, `https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js`).

**Test Case 2: ES6**

The second test case uses the native JavaScript `indexOf` method, which was introduced in ECMAScript 6 (ES6). This method is designed to be more efficient and concise than using a library like Lodash.

**Pros of using native JavaScript `indexOf`:**

* Performance benefits: Using the native `indexOf` method should be faster and more efficient than relying on a library.
* Reduced overhead: Without the need to load an external library, this approach reduces the overall latency and complexity of the test case.

**Cons of using native JavaScript `indexOf`:**

* Limited functionality: The `indexOf` method only provides basic indexing functionality and does not offer many other utility functions like Lodash.

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of useful functions for working with arrays, objects, and more. It's widely used in the industry and can be included in projects to provide additional functionality without requiring manual implementation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None mentioned**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing performance between two different approaches.

**Alternative Approaches:**

* Other methods for finding indices in arrays, such as using `for` loops or other array iteration techniques.
* Alternative libraries that offer similar functionality to Lodash, but with different APIs and implementations.
* Optimizations and techniques for improving the performance of native JavaScript `indexOf`, such as caching or memoization.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of using a library like Lodash versus the native JavaScript `indexOf` method. The pros and cons of each approach highlight the trade-offs between convenience, performance, and overhead when choosing a method to find indices in arrays.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	12432819.0 Ops/sec
es6	154605216.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

my test lodash vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs es6

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

lodash

es6

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):