Benchmark: for vs filter 1111

Tests:

for
const array = ['sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetwtwe', 'dsf1dsfdfsd', 'sdfdsfsdfsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsf1wetwtwe', 'dsfdsfdfsd', 'sdfds1fsdfsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetwtwe', 'dsfdsfdfsd', 'sdfdsfsd1fsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetw1twe', 'dsfdsfdfsd', 'sdfdsfsdfsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetwtwe', 'dsfdsf1dfsd', 'sdfdsfsdfsfsdf'] const final = [] for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { const item = array[i] if (item.includes('1')) { final.push(item) } }
filter
const array = ['sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetwtwe', 'dsf1dsfdfsd', 'sdfdsfsdfsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsf1wetwtwe', 'dsfdsfdfsd', 'sdfds1fsdfsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetwtwe', 'dsfdsfdfsd', 'sdfdsfsd1fsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetw1twe', 'dsfdsfdfsd', 'sdfdsfsdfsfsdf', 'sdfsdfd', 'dsfwetwtwe', 'dsfdsf1dfsd', 'sdfdsfsdfsfsdf'] const final2 = array.filter(item => item.includes('1'))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array in JavaScript: `for` loop and `filter()` method.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"for"`**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and push items that contain the character '1' into a new array.
2. **"filter"`**: This test case uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with only the items that contain the character '1'.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Traditional `for` loop
* `filter()` method

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Traditional `for` Loop:**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient for small arrays or specific use cases where the filter condition is complex.
* Provides better control over the iteration process.

Cons:

* Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of the loop variable increment and decrement operations.
* Requires manual management of array indices, which can lead to errors if not done correctly.

**`filter()` Method:**

Pros:

* Generally faster for large arrays as it leverages native JavaScript optimization.
* Reduces code verbosity and makes it easier to maintain.

Cons:

* May be slower for small arrays or specific use cases where the filter condition is complex, due to the overhead of creating a new array.
* Less control over the iteration process compared to traditional loops.

**Library Used**

The `filter()` method in JavaScript is a built-in method that uses a native implementation. It does not rely on any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If the `for` loop approach was even slower than expected, other alternatives could be considered:

* Using `forEach()` with a callback function
* Using `map()` with a filter-like callback
* Using a library like Lodash's `filterBy()` method

However, it's worth noting that in this specific benchmark, the `for` loop approach was not faster than expected, so alternative approaches may not provide significant benefits.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36 OPR/81.0.4196.37

Browser/OS: Opera 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	1152921.5 Ops/sec
filter	1159084.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs filter 1111 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):