Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs every

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
Array.filter
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
Array.indexOf
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
Array.every
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.every(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.every(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.every

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Goal**

The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of four different methods for checking if an array contains at least one zero element:

1. `Array.some()`
2. `Array.filter()`
3. `Array.indexOf()` (with a timeout check)
4. `Array.every()`

**Test Data**

Both test cases use arrays generated by pushing random numbers between 0 and 1000 onto them. This is done to create a scenario where at least one zero element exists in the array.

**Benchmarking Approach**

The benchmark uses the following approach:

* For each method, it generates two arrays: `hasZero` and `withoutZero`. The former contains zeros, while the latter contains non-zero numbers.
* It then uses these arrays to perform the corresponding check (e.g., `some()` on `hasZero`, `filter()` on `hasZero`, etc.).
* The benchmark repeats this process multiple times to gather data.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. `Array.some()`: This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array passes a test (in this case, checking for zero).
2. `Array.filter()`: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass a test (in this case, filtering out non-zero elements).
3. `Array.indexOf()`: This method returns the index of the first element in the array that matches a given value (in this case, searching for 0). However, if no match is found, it returns -1.
4. `Array.every()`: This method returns `true` if all elements in the array pass a test (in this case, checking if each element is zero).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* `Array.some()`:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, easy to read.
	+ Cons: May lead to performance issues if only one element needs to be checked.
* `Array.filter()`:
	+ Pros: Returns a new array with filtered elements, can be more efficient than some methods.
	+ Cons: Creates an additional copy of the original array, which can be memory-intensive for large arrays.
* `Array.indexOf()`:
	+ Pros: Efficiently finds the first occurrence of a value, returns -1 if not found.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than other methods for finding all occurrences, and may lead to performance issues with large arrays or sparse data.
* `Array.every()`:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, easy to read.
	+ Cons: May lead to performance issues if only one element needs to be checked.

**Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature called "arrow functions" (e.g., `v => v === 0`). Arrow functions are a shorthand way of defining small functions and were introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They provide a more concise syntax for defining anonymous functions.

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting the results, consider the following:

* The benchmark uses Firefox 122 as the base browser, which may not be representative of other browsers or versions.
* The number of executions per second is used to measure performance, but this value can vary depending on system load and other factors.
* The benchmark only tests the presence of a single zero element in each array; if you need to test for multiple values or more complex conditions, additional modifications would be needed.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for checking if an array contains at least one zero element include:

* `Array.reduce()`: This method reduces the array to a single value by applying a function to each element. You can use it in combination with `some()` or `every()`.
* Custom implementation using `for` loops or recursion: While not recommended for performance-critical code, custom implementations can provide more control over iteration and conditions.
* Using `Set` data structure: If you need to check if an array contains a specific value, converting the array to a Set can be faster and more efficient.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	11451.2 Ops/sec
Array.filter	6531.6 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	74511.9 Ops/sec
Array.every	67761144.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs every (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.every

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.every

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):