Benchmark: lodash some vs loop (static functions)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.2/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var sample = [1000, 1234, 1222, 3444, 1, 89, 100, 1200, 88888, 99999, 2000000];

for (var i = 1000000; i > 0; i--){
	if(i % 3 === 0){
      sample.push[i]
    }
}

function check(item) {
  return item === 55555;
}

function containsLodash(myList) {
    return _.some(myList, function myPredicateFn(listItem){
      return listItem === Math.floor(Math.random() * 99999);
    });
}

function containsSimple(myList, myItem) {
    for (var i = 0; i < myList.length; i++) {
        var contains = myItem === myList[i];
        if (contains) {
            return contains;
        }
    }
    return false;
}

Tests:

use lodash
containsLodash(sample)
use for loop
containsSimple(sample, Math.floor(Math.random() * 99999))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
use lodash
use for loop

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 provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two functions:

1. `check(item)`: A simple function that takes an item as input and returns true if it equals 55555, and false otherwise.
2. Two functions for testing:
	* `containsLodash(myList)`: This function uses the Lodash library to check if any element in the provided array `myList` is equal to a randomly generated number between 0 and 99999 (inclusive). The `_some()` method is used, which returns true as soon as it finds at least one element that matches the condition.
	* `containsSimple(myList, myItem)`: This function uses a simple for loop to iterate through the elements of the array `myList` and checks if any element equals the provided `myItem`. If a match is found, it immediately returns true.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to load the Lodash library:

```html
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.2/lodash.min.js"></script>
```

This script loads the `lodash` library, which is used by the `containsLodash()` function.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON includes two individual test cases:

1. `containsLodash(sample)`: This test case runs the `containsLodash(myList)` function using the pre-defined array `sample`. The test name indicates that Lodash is being used.
2. `containsSimple(sample, Math.floor(Math.random() * 99999))`: This test case runs the `containsSimple(myList, myItem)` function using the same array `sample` and a randomly generated item. The test name indicates that a simple for loop is being used.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two different approaches:

1. **Lodash (containsLodash)**: Uses the Lodash library to perform the iteration.
2. **Simple For Loop (containsSimple)**: Uses a traditional for loop to iterate through the array elements.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash (containsLodash)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Convenient and concise syntax using `_some()` method.
		- Allows for more elegant and expressive code.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires loading an external library, which may add overhead.
		- May not be optimized for performance in all browsers or environments.
* **Simple For Loop (containsSimple)**:
	+ Pros:
		- No external dependencies or libraries needed.
		- Can be more intuitive and easier to understand for some developers.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual iteration through the array elements, which can lead to performance issues if not optimized correctly.

**Other Considerations**

* **Performance**: The benchmark results show that using Lodash (`containsLodash`) outperforms the simple for loop approach (`containsSimple`) in terms of executions per second.
* **Development Time**: Using a library like Lodash can reduce development time, as it provides a convenient and expressive way to perform common tasks. However, this comes at the cost of potential performance overhead.

**Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use an external library like Lodash or want to explore alternative approaches, some options include:

* **Built-in Array Methods**: Many browsers provide built-in array methods that can be used for iteration and searching, such as `some()`, `every()`, `find()`, and more.
* **Custom Implementation**: You could implement your own custom functions for iterating through arrays or searching for elements. However, this approach requires manual optimization and may not offer significant performance improvements over built-in methods.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference as a developer.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Mac OS X 10.12.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
use lodash	170653.3 Ops/sec
use for loop	1312485.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash some vs loop (static functions) (version: 8)

Comparing performance of: use lodash vs use for loop

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

use lodash

use for loop

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):