Benchmark: Array find by id or indexOf

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = {id:i++};

Tests:

Find by id
const item = arr.find((item) => item.id === 1E5)
Map id then indexOf
const item = arr[arr.map((item) => item.id).indexOf(1E5)]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Find by id
Map id then 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.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to find an element in an array by its ID.

1. `Find by id`: This approach uses the `find()` method, which returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, the ID matches 100000).
2. `Map id then indexOf`: This approach uses two methods: `map()` to create a new array with the IDs, and then `indexOf()` to find the index of the desired ID.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two different approaches:

* `Find by id` (using `find()` method)
* `Map id then indexOf` (using `map()` and `indexOf()` methods)

**Pros and Cons**

**Find by id**

Pros:

* Simple and efficient, as it only iterates over the array once.
* Fast, especially for smaller arrays.

Cons:

* May be slower for larger arrays due to the overhead of finding an element in the array.
* May not work well if the array is sparse (i.e., has many gaps between elements).

**Map id then indexOf**

Pros:

* Can take advantage of optimizations provided by modern browsers, such as caching and parallelization.
* Can handle large arrays more efficiently than `find()`.

Cons:

* More complex and less efficient than `find()`, especially for smaller arrays.
* May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new array.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. However, the use of template literals (`var arr = [];`) is an older syntax that has been largely replaced by modern JavaScript features like `const arr = [];`. It's unlikely to be considered "special" or relevant for new code.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could include:

* Using a more efficient data structure, such as a Map (in ECMAScript 6+).
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda to optimize array operations.
* Using WebAssembly or other low-level optimization techniques.

In summary, the benchmark is testing the performance of two different approaches to find an element in an array by its ID. The `Find by id` approach is simple and efficient, while the `Map id then indexOf` approach can take advantage of optimizations provided by modern browsers but incurs additional overhead.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Find by id	1123.2 Ops/sec
Map id then indexOf	756.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array find by id or indexOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Find by id vs Map id then indexOf

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Find by id

Map id then 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):