Benchmark: array.find vs object by key

Script Preparation code:

var arrayExample = Array(40).fill().map((_, idx) => ({
    id: idx
}));
var objExample = arrayExample.reduce((prev, curr) => prev[curr.id] = curr);

Tests:

Array.find
const found = arrayExample.find((item) => item.id === 39);
Object by key
const found = objExample[39];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.find
Object by key

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 the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to find an element in an array or object: `array.find` and accessing an object by its key.

**Array.find**

The first test case uses the `find` method on an array. The `find` method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function. In this case, the testing function is `(item) => item.id === 39`, which means it checks if the `id` property of each object in the array is equal to 39.

**Object by key**

The second test case accesses an object by its key directly. The `objExample` object is created from the `arrayExample` array using the `reduce` method, where each element in the original array is used as a key to add the corresponding value to the resulting object.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. Using `array.find`: This approach uses the `find` method on the array, which can return immediately if it finds an element that satisfies the testing function.
2. Accessing an object by its key: This approach directly accesses the object using the provided key.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Array.find**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient if the array is large and only one element needs to be found.
* Can return immediately if it finds the desired element.

Cons:

* May not be as efficient for small arrays or for accessing specific elements by index.
* Requires a function to specify the testing criteria, which can add complexity.

**Object by key**

Pros:

* Can access elements by their exact key without relying on functions or indexing.
* Generally faster for direct accesses since it's an O(1) operation.

Cons:

* May require additional memory allocation and processing if using objects with nested structures.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used other than the built-in `Array` and `Object` methods in JavaScript. However, the `reduce` method is used to create the object from the array, which is a common pattern in functional programming.

**Special JS features or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that require specific knowledge of modern JavaScript. It's a straightforward comparison of two basic methods for accessing elements in arrays and objects.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to find an element in an array or object, other alternatives might include:

* `array.indexOf()` (which returns -1 if not found)
* Using a regular expression with the `match` method
* Iterating over the array or object manually using loops

However, these approaches are generally less efficient than using the `find` method for arrays and direct accesses for objects.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.find	10057323.0 Ops/sec
Object by key	14512427.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array.find vs object by key (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.find vs Object by key

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.find

Object by key

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):