Benchmark: Native filter vs lodash find

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

Native filter
users.filter(function (o) { return o.age < 40; })[0]
Lodash find
_.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter
Lodash find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: "Native filter vs lodash find". These tests aim to compare the performance of native JavaScript filtering (using `Array.prototype.filter()`) with the equivalent functionality from the popular utility library, Lodash (`_.find()`).

**Options being compared:**

1. **Native JavaScript Filtering**: This approach uses the built-in `filter()` method on an array to filter elements based on a condition.
2. **Lodash Finding**: This approach utilizes the `_.find()` function from Lodash, which searches for the first element in an array that satisfies a provided function.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Native JavaScript Filtering**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster and more lightweight since it's built into the browser.
		+ Does not require additional library downloads or setup.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be less readable for complex filtering conditions due to the callback function syntax.
2. **Lodash Finding**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code, especially for complex filtering conditions.
		+ Provides a robust set of utility functions that can be used in other contexts beyond filtering.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library download and setup.
		+ May have performance overhead due to the extra indirection.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including filtering functions like `_.find()`. It's designed to be lightweight and efficient while providing a high level of expressiveness for common tasks. By using Lodash, developers can write more concise and readable code without sacrificing performance.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON. However, if you'd like to explore other nuances of JavaScript filtering, here are some additional considerations:

* **Array.prototype.some() vs Array.prototype.every()**: These methods provide alternative ways to filter arrays, but they might have slightly different performance characteristics.
* **Arrow functions vs traditional function expressions**: Arrow functions can simplify code and reduce overhead in modern browsers, but may not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Other alternatives:**

For more advanced filtering scenarios, consider using:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides a range of filtering helpers.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that offers a robust set of filtering functions and other utility functions.
3. **Native JavaScript methods**: Some modern browsers provide additional array methods like `filter()`, `findIndex()`, and `some()` that can be used for efficient filtering.

When choosing between native JavaScript filtering, Lodash finding, or alternative libraries, consider factors such as:

* Performance: Native JavaScript filtering might be the best choice if speed is critical.
* Code readability: Lodash finding or other utility libraries might provide more readable code for complex filtering scenarios.
* Library overhead: Additional library downloads and setup can impact performance, especially in resource-constrained environments.

By understanding these options and considerations, developers can make informed decisions about which approach to use for their specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.15.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native filter	9865589.0 Ops/sec
Lodash find	3155101.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Native filter vs lodash find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter vs Lodash find

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native filter

Lodash find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):