Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Map+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
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.map + .includes
var hasZeroIds = hasZero.map(x => x+1); var withoutZeroIds = withoutZero.map(x => x+1); var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZeroIds.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZeroIds.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.map + .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 benchmark and its various test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, compares the performance of different approaches for checking if an array contains zero values. The tests are designed to measure the execution speed of each method.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates two arrays: `hasZero` and `withoutZero`. Each array has 10,000 elements, with random integer values between 0 and 1000. The `hasZero` array contains only zeros, while the `withoutZero` array contains a mix of zero and non-zero values.

**Test Cases**

There are six test cases:

1. **Array.some**: Uses the `some()` method to check if at least one element in the array is equal to zero.
2. **Array.filter**: Uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with only the elements that are equal to zero.
3. **Array.indexOf**: Uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of the first occurrence of zero in the array.
4. **Array.map + .includes**: First maps each element to itself (effectively creating a new array), and then uses the `includes()` method to check if zero is present.
5. **Array.find**: Uses the `find()` method to return the first element that meets the condition (in this case, being equal to zero).
6. **Map + Includes** is actually incorrect it's **some**, "Array.some" has been skipped because of incorrect name

These test cases cover different approaches for checking if an array contains zero values.

**Library Used**

None, as all tests use built-in JavaScript methods (`.some()`, `.filter()`, `.indexOf()`, and `includes()`).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some older browsers might have issues with `find()` method due to implementation differences.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Array.some**: Pros: efficient and concise. Cons: may not be suitable for large arrays or performance-critical code.
2. **Array.filter**: Pros: creates a new array, which can be useful in some cases. Cons: can be slower than other methods due to the creation of a new array.
3. **Array.indexOf**: Pros: fast and simple. Cons: may not be suitable for large arrays or when searching for multiple values.
4. **Array.map + .includes**: Pros: creates a new array with processed values. Cons: can be slower than other methods due to the creation of a new array, and may not be efficient if `includes()` is called multiple times.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **Array.prototype.every()`: Checks if all elements in the array are equal to zero.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()`: Can be used to iterate over the array and check if any element is equal to zero.

These alternatives can provide additional options for performance comparison, but may not offer significant advantages over the existing methods.

Please note that this analysis focuses on the provided benchmark definition and test cases. Other factors, such as specific use case requirements or optimization techniques, might affect the choice of method.

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/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	320195.2 Ops/sec
Array.filter	94206.0 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1410061.1 Ops/sec
Array.map + .includes	9235.6 Ops/sec
Array.find	321198.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Map+Includes vs. Find (version: 0)

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.map + .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):