Benchmark: isNull lodash vs native

Tests:

native
null === null
lodash
_.isNull(null)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the test case being performed on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Test Cases**

The benchmark definition is a simple comparison between two values: `null` and `null`. This means that we're testing whether both JavaScript engines (native and Lodash) produce the same result when checking if a variable is null.

There are only two test cases:

1. "native" - This test case uses the native JavaScript engine to compare `null` with itself.
2. "lodash" - This test case uses the Lodash library, which provides a utility function `isNull()` that checks if a value is null or undefined.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options:

1. **Native JavaScript**: The native JavaScript engine uses the built-in comparison operators to check for equality between two values. In this case, it's comparing `null` with itself.
2. **Lodash `isNull()` function**: Lodash provides a utility function that checks if a value is null or undefined.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Built-in performance, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for specific use cases, can be slower due to interpreter overhead.
2. **Lodash `isNull()` function**:
	* Pros: Optimized for null checks, allows for more flexibility in implementation (e.g., also checks for undefined).
	* Cons: Introduces an external dependency (the Lodash library), may have performance overhead.

**Library and Purpose**

In this case, the Lodash library is used to provide a utility function `isNull()`. The purpose of this function is to check if a value is null or undefined. It's likely that the author of the benchmark chose to use Lodash for its optimized implementation of null checks.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They're straightforward comparisons between `null` and itself, with one option using a library function.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to run the same benchmark without using Lodash, you could implement the null check manually in your own code. Alternatively, if you wanted to use a different library for null checks, such as Jest or TypeScript's built-in type checking, you could choose to do so. However, keep in mind that each of these alternatives would have its own pros and cons.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native	112148640.0 Ops/sec
lodash	8828732.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

isNull lodash vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):