Benchmark: array find vs _.find vs for v2

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]; } }
.find
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; var b = a.find(item => item === 'bc');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.find
for
.find

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 benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with three test cases:

1. `array find vs _.find vs for v2`: This is the main benchmark name, describing what will be compared.
2. The `Script Preparation Code` field is empty, meaning no custom script needs to be run before executing the tests.
3. The `Html Preparation Code` field includes a reference to the Lodash library (`_`) which provides utility functions.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **`.find`**: This test case uses the `_` object and its `.find()` method, which searches for an element in the array that matches the given criteria.
2. **`for`**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and find the desired value.
3. **`_.find`**: This is identical to the first test case, as it's likely an error or omission.

**Libraries and Features**

* The Lodash library (`_`) is used in all three test cases for its `.find()` method.
* No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned, so we can assume that any differences observed between these tests will be due to the implementation details of each approach (e.g., loop vs. function call).

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two main approaches are being compared:

1. **`.find()`**: Using the `.find()` method provided by Lodash.
2. **`for`**: A traditional `for` loop with manual iteration.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **`.find()`**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code
		- Easier to maintain and debug due to the abstraction layer provided by Lodash
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce overhead due to the function call and the library's implementation details
* `for` loop:
	+ Pros:
		- No overhead from the function call or library
		- More control over iteration flow (e.g., early exit conditions)
	+ Cons:
		- Less concise and readable code
		- May require more maintenance effort due to manual iteration

**Other Considerations**

In addition to performance, other factors that might influence this benchmark include:

* Memory usage: How does each approach allocate memory for the array?
* Cache locality: Does the order of elements in the `_.find()` method impact cache locality?
* Maintenance and extensibility: How easy is it to modify or extend these implementations?

**Alternatives**

Other approaches that might be compared in a benchmark like this include:

* **Array.prototype.indexOf()**: Similar to `.find()`, but with slightly different implementation details.
* **Regular expressions**: Using regular expressions to search for the desired value in the array (though likely slower than the above options).
* **Manual sorting and searching**: Sorting the array first and then searching for the desired value.

These alternatives would introduce additional variables that could affect the benchmark's results, such as parsing overhead or data structure complexity.

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	3275609.5 Ops/sec
for	156631856.0 Ops/sec
.find	155362544.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array find vs _.find vs for v2 (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: _.find vs for vs .find

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.find

for

.find

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):