Benchmark: ArrayFind - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [ 'eThmP', '0braO', 'NlFtR', 'PX5Zp', 'BbD6m', 'VLdhh', 'jZnjN', 'UcWE3', 'BYNJ1', 'z3Oxy', 'AiAHj', 'ynkPJ', 'QaBNt', 'SnRZt', 'O56xK', 'qtWIK', 'UVgy6', 'UfTLi', 'FbjJM', 'KvznS', 'hOk9l', 'FUOc8', 'OBUtL', 'LkIIQ', 'dSfU4', 'zML1z', '2HGK0', '6NW1d', 'suA3T', 'aRagr', 'VLeHJ', 'bOjeW', 'VY5m4', 'T8TLT', 'mHoUd', 'YVh4v', 'aGY5z', 'p4iFm', 'OMPJd', 'xir0Q', 'ufSaN', 'iQkPe', 'ekZ0H', 'j9qqi', '4q9ht', 'jaKWO', '.', 'ypsgr', 'sE42b', 'NsEfX', 'khKiC' ];
var ar =[];

for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  ar = [ar, ...arr];
}

Array.prototype.myio = function(search) {
  return (this.indexOf(search) !== -1);
};

Array.prototype.myfora = function(search) {
  for (var i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
    if(this[i][0] === search) return true;
  }
  return false;
};

Array.prototype.myforb = function(search) {
  for (var i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
    if(this[i][0] === search) {
      break;
      return true;
    }
  }
  return false;
};

Array.prototype.myfe = function(search){
  var tr = false;
  this.forEach(function(e){if(e === search)tr = true;})
  return tr;
};

Array.prototype.myaf = function(search) {
  return (typeof this.find(function(e){return e === search}) !== 'undefined');
};

Tests:

Test1
arr.myfora('BbD6m');
Test2
arr.myforb('AiAHj');
Test3
arr.myio('sE42b');
Test4
arr.myfe('sE42b');
Test5
arr.myaf('sE42b');
Test6
ar.myfe('sE42b');
Test7
ar.myaf('sE42b');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2
Test3
Test4
Test5
Test6
Test7

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the execution time of various methods on an array in JavaScript. The test cases are designed to check how fast each method can find or iterate through the elements of the array.

**Array Creation**

Before running the tests, the script creates a large array `arr` containing 30 unique strings using a loop.

**Custom Array Methods**

The script defines four custom methods on the `Array.prototype`:

1. `myio(search)`: checks if an element is in the array
2. `myfora(search)`: finds the first occurrence of a value in the array
3. `myforb(search)`: finds the first occurrence of a value in the array using `break` and returns true as soon as found
4. `myfe(search)`: checks if any element is equal to the search value
5. `myaf(search)`: checks if a find() method returns a defined value

**Test Cases**

The test cases are small scripts that call one of these custom methods with a specific string as an argument.

**Comparison**

Here's what each test case is testing:

1. `Test5` ( `myaf(search)` ): checks if the find() method is fast.
2. `Test3` ( `myfe(search)` ): checks if the `myfe` method is slow.
3. `Test4` ( `myfora(search)` ): checks if the first occurrence method is fast.
4. `Test2` ( `myforb(search)` ): checks if the first occurrence method with break is slow.
5. `Test1` ( no specific method called, but close to the array's length ): checks if the test case doesn't fail due to out-of-bounds errors.

**Browser and Device Results**

The results show that:

* Chromium 79 on Linux Desktop has varying execution times for each test case
* The fastest test case is `Test5` (find() method), with an average of around 745,000 executions per second.
* The slowest tests are `Test2` and `Test1`, with slower execution times.

Overall, the benchmark suggests that:

* Custom array methods can be faster than built-in methods like find()
* The first occurrence method is generally faster than the others
* Browser and device variations affect execution time

Note: I've simplified some details for brevity. Let me know if you'd like more clarification!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) snap Chromium/79.0.3945.117 Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chromium 79 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	4956131.5 Ops/sec
Test2	5255187.0 Ops/sec
Test3	6091504.0 Ops/sec
Test4	5997348.0 Ops/sec
Test5	7451685.5 Ops/sec
Test6	1293720.8 Ops/sec
Test7	1345549.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ArrayFind (version: 5)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2 vs Test3 vs Test4 vs Test5 vs Test6 vs Test7

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

Test5

Test6

Test7

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):