Benchmark: Some vs indexOf vs Includes vs Find

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.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.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.includes(v => v === 0);
Array.find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.find(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.includes
Array.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 18 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of four different approaches:

1. `Array.filter()`
2. `Array.indexOf()`
3. `Array.includes()`
4. `Array.find()`

These methods are used to search for an element with a specific value within an array.

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined by a JSON object, which contains the benchmark definition and the name of the test.

1. **`Array.filter()`**: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.
2. **`Array.indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the testing function.
3. **`Array.includes()`**: This method returns `true` if an element with the specified value exists in the array, and `false` otherwise.
4. **`Array.find()`**: This method returns the value of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **`Array.filter()`**:
    *   Pros: More efficient than `Array.indexOf()` or `Array.includes()`, as it creates a new array with only the desired elements. This can be beneficial for large arrays.
    *   Cons: Creates a new array, which can lead to higher memory usage and slower performance if the array is very large.
*   **`Array.indexOf()`**:
    *   Pros: Returns the index of the element directly, without creating a new array. This makes it more efficient than `Array.includes()`.
    *   Cons: May not be as efficient for larger arrays, since it has to search through the entire array to find the element.
*   **`Array.includes()`**:
    *   Pros: Returns `true` or `false` immediately, without having to create a new array. This makes it suitable for situations where only a simple check is needed.
    *   Cons: May be slower than other methods for large arrays, since it has to search through the entire array to find the element.
*   **`Array.find()`**:
    *   Pros: Returns the value of the first matching element directly, without creating a new array. This makes it efficient and suitable for searching large datasets.
    *   Cons: May not be as efficient as `Array.filter()` or `Array.indexOf()`, since it has to search through the entire array.

**Other Considerations**

*   **Memory usage**: The choice of method can significantly affect memory usage, especially when dealing with large arrays. `Array.filter()` creates a new array, while `Array.indexOf()` and `Array.includes()` modify the original array.
*   **Cache locality**: Some methods, like `Array.indexOf()`, may not exhibit good cache locality due to their nature (searching through the entire array). This can lead to slower performance on modern CPUs with high cache hierarchies.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses a simple JavaScript implementation of these methods. No external libraries are required.

There are other alternatives for each method, such as:

*   **`Array.prototype.some()`**: Instead of `Array.includes()`, which returns immediately.
*   **`Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: For more complex operations on arrays (e.g., mapping or reducing elements).
*   **`NumJS` or `jsArray` libraries**: Provide optimized implementations for array operations.

**Special JavaScript Features**

None are used in this benchmark, but they can be useful when working with advanced JavaScript features like async/await, Web Workers, or typed arrays.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/98.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.filter	10966.6 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	98628.1 Ops/sec
Array.includes	71948.4 Ops/sec
Array.find	31766.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs indexOf vs Includes vs Find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs Array.find

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Array.find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 18 days ago):