Benchmark: splice(indexof()) vs filter

Script Preparation code:


var arr = Array.from({length:10000}, (v,i) => i)

Tests:

filter
arr.filter((item) => { return item !== 5000; });
indexOf
arr.splice(arr.indexOf(5000), 1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, compares the performance of two JavaScript approaches: `splice(indexOf())` and `filter()`. The benchmark tests which approach is faster for removing an element from an array.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Splice with `indexOf()`**: This approach uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of the target element (5000) in the array, and then removes the element at that index using `splice()`.
2. **Filter**: This approach uses the `filter()` method to create a new array containing all elements except the one with value 5000.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Splice with `indexOf()`**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient if the target element is close to the beginning of the array, as it only needs to traverse a small portion of the array.
	+ Cons: Requires two method calls (indexOf() followed by splice()), which can lead to additional overhead and slower performance compared to using `filter()` directly.
* **Filter**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive, as it eliminates the need for indexing and removes the element in a single step. Also, it does not require an extra method call.
	+ Cons: May be slower than splice() when removing a large portion of the array, since JavaScript has to create a new array containing all elements except the one being removed.

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit mention of any libraries or special features being used. However, it's worth noting that both `indexOf()` and `filter()` are built-in JavaScript methods, so they don't require any external dependencies.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific use case and performance requirements:

* If you need to frequently remove elements from an array at a specific index, using `splice(indexOf())` might be more efficient.
* If you're working with large arrays or need to eliminate multiple elements that don't match a condition, `filter()` is likely a better choice.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for removing an element from an array include:

1. **Array.prototype.map() + concat()**: This approach uses `map()` to create a new array containing the desired elements and then concatenates it with an empty array using `concat()`. However, this method is generally slower than both `splice(indexOf())` and `filter()`.
2. **Using `findIndex()` instead of `indexOf()`**: If you need to find the index of the target element first, consider using `findIndex()`, which returns -1 if no element matches.
3. **Using a different data structure**: Depending on your specific use case, using an array with a pre-allocated size or another data structure like a linked list might be more efficient for removing elements.

In summary, this benchmark provides a simple and effective way to compare the performance of two common JavaScript approaches: `splice(indexOf())` and `filter()`. The choice between these approaches depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/95.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 95 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	13538.9 Ops/sec
indexOf	20972210.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

splice(indexof()) vs filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs indexOf

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

indexOf

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):