Benchmark: Some vs. Filter with pop() vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; 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 with pop()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0); tempResult.pop();
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 with pop()
Array.indexOf
Array.includes
Array.find

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 data and explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests different ways to check if an array contains zero values. The script preparation code generates two arrays with random integers: `hasZero` containing numbers between 0 and 1000, and `withoutZero` containing numbers between 1 and 1000.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are six test cases:

1. **Array.some**: This test case uses the `some()` method to check if any element in the array is equal to zero.
2. **Array.filter with pop()**: This test case uses the `filter()` method followed by calling `pop()` on the resulting array.
3. **Array.indexOf**: This test case uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of zero in the array, returning -1 if not found.
4. **Array.includes**: This test case uses the `includes()` method to check if the array contains zero directly (note: this is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2020).
5. **Array.find**: This test case uses the `find()` method to find the first element in the array that equals zero.
6. **Array.filter without pop()**: This test case uses the `filter()` method without calling `pop()` on the resulting array.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of each test case across different browsers (Chrome 110) and devices (Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15.7).

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Array.some**: Pros: concise, readable code; Cons: may be slower due to the need to iterate over the array.
2. **Array.filter with pop()**: Pros: can be faster than `some()` since it avoids unnecessary iterations; Cons: uses an extra method call (`pop()`), which can introduce overhead.
3. **Array.indexOf**: Pros: efficient for small arrays or exact matches; Cons: returns -1 for non-matching elements, and may not be as readable as other methods.
4. **Array.includes**: Pros: relatively modern addition to JavaScript, designed specifically for this use case; Cons: may have performance implications due to its novelty.
5. **Array.find**: Pros: concise, readable code; Cons: can be slower than `some()` since it involves an additional iteration.
6. **Array.filter without pop()**: Pros: concise, readable code; Cons: similar to `some()`, but may still incur unnecessary iterations.

**Other Considerations**

* The use of `Math.random()` and `Math.floor()` introduces some randomness in the benchmark results, which may affect the accuracy of the comparisons.
* The size of the arrays (10,000 elements) is relatively small compared to typical JavaScript array sizes, so the performance differences between these methods might not be significant in more complex scenarios.

**Alternative Approaches**

For comparison purposes, one could consider using other methods such as:

1. **Array.prototype.every()**: Similar to `some()`, but returns true if all elements meet the condition.
2. **Boolean expressions**: Using a simple boolean expression (e.g., `hasZero.includes(0)`) can be faster than method calls since it avoids function overhead.
3. **Native bitwise operations**: For arrays with only zero or non-zero values, using native bitwise operations (e.g., `(x ^ 0) != x`) could potentially outperform method calls.

However, these alternatives are not included in the provided benchmark, so it's difficult to compare them directly.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	345571.9 Ops/sec
Array.filter with pop()	41674.4 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1325608.5 Ops/sec
Array.includes	2828578.2 Ops/sec
Array.find	361053.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter with pop() vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter with pop() vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs Array.find

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter with pop()

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):