Benchmark: array find vs _.find vs for

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Tests:

_.find
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; var b = _.find(a, item => item === 'bc');
for
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; var result = null; for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { if (a[i] === 'bc') { result = a[i]; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.find
for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in each test case.

The benchmark compares three different approaches to find an element in an array: using the `_.find` function from the Lodash library, a traditional `for` loop, and the new ES6 spread operator (`...`). The spread operator is not actually being used in this benchmark, as it would require modifying the script preparation code.

**Options compared:**

1. **Lodash's _.find**: This function searches for an element in the array that satisfies the provided predicate (a callback function).
2. **Traditional for loop**: A classic `for` loop is used to iterate over the elements of the array, checking each one against the target value (`'bc'`).
3. **ES6 spread operator**: Although not being used directly, this benchmark's script preparation code could potentially utilize it if modified.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash's _.find**:
	* Pros: concise and readable code, optimized for performance by using the V8 engine's built-in functions.
	* Cons: requires an additional library (Lodash) to be included in the script.
2. **Traditional for loop**:
	* Pros: widely supported and understood, no external libraries required.
	* Cons: verbose code, potentially slower than optimized libraries like Lodash due to overhead from function calls and iteration.
3. **ES6 spread operator** (not directly used):
	* Pros: concise and expressive, potentially faster than traditional loops in some cases.
	* Cons: not applicable here, as it's not being used.

**Library usage:** The benchmark uses the Lodash library for its `_.find` function. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, `_` (the dot notation) is used to access the `find` function from the Lodash namespace.

**Special JS features or syntax:** None mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

Now, let's look at some alternative approaches that could be used for finding an element in an array:

* **Built-in `indexOf` method**: This would involve calling `array.indexOf(targetValue)`, which returns the index of the first occurrence of the target value. If the value is not found, it returns -1.
* **Array.prototype.some() and Array.prototype.find()** (ES6+): These methods can be used to find an element in an array that satisfies a condition. `some()` returns true if at least one element matches the predicate, while `find()` returns the first element that matches.
* **Custom implementation using binary search**: For large arrays, a more efficient approach would be to use binary search to find the target value.

These alternatives could potentially be used in a different benchmark or test case, but are not relevant to this specific comparison of Lodash's `_find`, traditional `for` loops, and the (not directly used) ES6 spread operator.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.find	3294596.0 Ops/sec
for	156564464.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array find vs _.find vs for (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: _.find vs for

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.find

for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):