Benchmark: Some vs Filter 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.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.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.includes(0) : withoutZero.includes(0);
Array.find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.find(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.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.includes
Array.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 19 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares four different ways to check if an element exists in an array: `some`, `filter`, `indexOf`, and `includes`. The test uses two arrays, `hasZero` and `withoutZero`, which are populated with random integers. The benchmark definition for each test case is provided, and the latest benchmark results are shown.

**Options Compared**

1. **Array.some**: Uses the `some()` method to check if at least one element in the array matches a condition.
2. **Array.filter**: Uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with only the elements that match a condition.
3. **Array.indexOf**: Uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of the first element that matches a condition. If no element is found, it returns -1.
4. **Array.includes**: Uses the `includes()` method to check if an element exists in the array.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Array.some**:
    *   Pros: Simple, efficient, and works well for most use cases.
    *   Cons: Can be slower than other methods when dealing with large arrays or complex conditions.
*   **Array.filter**:
    *   Pros: Returns a new array with the desired elements, making it easy to process the result further. Can be faster than `some` for large arrays.
    *   Cons: Creates a new array, which can consume more memory. Also, if no element matches the condition, the resulting array will be empty.
*   **Array.indexOf**:
    *   Pros: Fast and efficient, especially when dealing with small or specific arrays.
    *   Cons: Returns -1 if no element is found, making it less readable than other methods.
*   **Array.includes**:
    *   Pros: Simple and readable, with a clear meaning. Works well for most use cases.
    *   Cons: Slower than `indexOf` when dealing with large arrays.

**Library**

In the provided benchmark, none of the test cases explicitly use any libraries or external dependencies beyond the JavaScript standard library. However, it's worth noting that some browser versions (e.g., Chrome 94) might have additional features or optimizations that could affect the results.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use special JS features or syntax that would require specific knowledge to understand. The focus is on the core array methods and their performance.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

*   **Using `Array.prototype.every()` instead of `Array.prototype.some()`: This method returns a boolean indicating whether all elements in the array pass the test implemented by the provided function.
*   **Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of `Array.prototype.filter()`: This method creates a new array with the results of applying the provided function on every element in this array.
*   **Using `Binary Search` instead of `indexOf()`: When dealing with large arrays and searching for an exact match, binary search can be more efficient than linear search.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	240757.3 Ops/sec
Array.filter	55386.7 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	171621.6 Ops/sec
Array.includes	3505616.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	250735.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

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 19 days ago):