Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Findrfhiehugiyerhug

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 60000; 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.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.includes(v => v === 0);
Array.find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	48000.9 Ops/sec
Array.filter	6147.5 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	215171.6 Ops/sec
Array.includes	2854042.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	48344.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking data and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a comparison between four different approaches to test if an array contains a specific value:

1. `Array.some()`
2. `Array.filter()`
3. `Array.indexOf()`
4. `Array.includes()`

Each approach is tested in two directions: with the presence of the value and without it.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates two arrays, `hasZero` and `withoutZero`, each containing 60,000 random integers between 0 and 1000 (inclusive). The values in `hasZero` are guaranteed to be zero, while those in `withoutZero` will not.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case has a unique benchmark definition, which can be broken down as follows:

1. `Array.some()`: Tests if the array contains at least one value equal to zero.
	* Pros: Simple and efficient for small arrays.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large arrays due to the need to iterate over all elements.
2. `Array.filter()`: Tests if the array contains exactly one value equal to zero.
	* Pros: Efficient for large arrays, as it only needs to process the filtered subset of elements.
	* Cons: Requires more memory and processing power compared to `some()` due to the need to create a new array.
3. `Array.indexOf()`: Tests if the array contains the first occurrence of zero (i.e., an index equal to 0).
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only needs to perform a single iteration over the array.
	* Cons: Will return -1 if the value is not found, which may lead to unexpected results in certain contexts.
4. `Array.includes()`: Tests if the array contains at least one value equal to zero (similar to `some()`).
	* Pros: Similar to `some()`, but with a more modern and intuitive API.
	* Cons: May be slower than `indexOf()` due to its need to perform a linear search.

**Library: null**

There are no external libraries used in these benchmarking tests.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax: None**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be explored, such as:

1. Using `Array.prototype.every()` instead of `some()`: This method returns true if all elements in the array pass the test.
2. Using `Array.prototype.includes()` with a custom callback function: This allows for more flexibility and control over the testing process.
3. Using a library like Lodash, which provides a range of utility functions for working with arrays.

However, these alternatives are not included in the provided benchmarking data.

Overall, this benchmarking test provides a useful comparison between four different approaches to testing array membership, highlighting their pros and cons, and potential implications for performance, memory usage, and developer experience.

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Findrfhiehugiyerhug (version: 0)

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

Created: one year 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 Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):