var arr = new Array(15000);
arr.fill({ id: 0 });
arr = arr.map((el, idx) => el.id = idx);
var foo = Math.floor(Math.random() * 15000);
var index = arr.indexOf(foo);
var index = arr.filter(el => el !== foo)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
FindIndex + splice | |
filter |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
FindIndex + splice | 776693.9 Ops/sec |
filter | 11827.5 Ops/sec |
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.
What is being tested?
The test compares the performance of two approaches: FindIndex + splice
and filter FindIndex
. The goal is to find the index of an element (foo
) within a large array (arr
). The two methods are compared in terms of execution time.
Options being compared:
indexOf()
method to find the index of foo
and then uses splice()
to remove the element at that index.el => el !== foo
) inside the Array.prototype.filter()
method, which returns an array with all elements that do not match the condition.Pros and Cons:
Library and syntax considerations:
There are no external libraries mentioned in the test case. However, it's worth noting that Array.prototype.indexOf()
and Array.prototype.splice()
are built-in methods, so they don't require any additional imports or setup.
Special JavaScript features:
None of the tested approaches use special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers. The test appears to be a simple benchmarking exercise focused on comparing the performance of two array manipulation techniques.
Other alternatives:
If you were looking for alternative methods to find an index in an array, some other options might include:
map()
and checking the result against the length of the array.findIndex()
and Array.prototype.some()
.Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement or compare against the original test, but they could potentially offer better performance for specific use cases.