Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. map+indexOf vs. map+Includes vs. Find

Script Preparation code:

var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  withoutZero.push({id: Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)})
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = withoutZero.some(v => v.id === 0);
Array.filter
var tempResult = !!withoutZero.filter(v => v.id === 0);
Array.map+indexOf
var withoutZeroIds = withoutZero.map(x => x.id); var tempResult = withoutZeroIds.indexOf(0) > -1;
Array.map+includes
var withoutZeroIds = withoutZero.map(x => x.id); var tempResult = withoutZeroIds.includes(0);
Array.find
var tempResult = withoutZero.find(v => v.id === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.map+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 benchmark and analyze each test case.

**Benchmark Definition**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run tests to compare the performance of different approaches.

**Options Compared**

1. `Array.some`
2. `Array.filter`
3. `Array.map+indexOf`
4. `Array.map+includes`
5. `Array.find`

Each test case measures the execution time of a specific array method on an array of 10,000 random objects with an integer `id` property.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array.some**
	* Pros: Simple and concise, only requires iterating over the array once.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to the need to check each element individually.
2. **Array.filter**
	* Pros: Returns a new array with filtered elements, which can be beneficial for performance-critical code.
	* Cons: Creates an additional array, which can lead to increased memory usage and garbage collection overhead.
3. **Array.map+indexOf**
	* Pros: Maps the array first, then uses `indexOf` to find the desired value, allowing for parallelization of the map operation.
	* Cons: Requires two operations (map and indexOf), which may not be as efficient as a single operation like some or filter.
4. **Array.map+includes**
	* Pros: Similar to Array.map+indexOf but uses `includes` instead, which is generally faster than `indexOf`.
	* Cons: Requires two operations (map and includes).
5. **Array.find**
	* Pros: Returns the first element that matches the condition, which can be beneficial for performance-critical code.
	* Cons: May be slower than some or filter if the array is large and no matching elements are found.

**Libraries Used**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that `Array.prototype.some`, `Array.prototype.filter`, `Array.prototype.indexOf`, `Array.prototype.includes`, and `Array.prototype.find` are all built-in methods in JavaScript, so no external libraries are required.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**
The benchmark does not include any special features or syntax like ES6 modules, async/await, or decorators. The focus is on comparing the performance of different array methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If none of these approaches were available, alternative implementations could have been used to achieve similar results, such as:

* Using a custom loop with an index variable
* Utilizing bitwise operations (e.g., `&` and `|`) for filtering or indexing
* Employing parallel processing techniques like parallel loops or worker threads

Keep in mind that the optimal approach will depend on the specific requirements of your application, including factors like memory constraints, performance needs, and code maintainability.

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	1802737.4 Ops/sec
Array.filter	73447.7 Ops/sec
Array.map+indexOf	15766.3 Ops/sec
Array.map+includes	37429.2 Ops/sec
Array.find	1795994.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.map+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):