Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find [CORRECTED]

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.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.includes(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.includes(v => v === 0);
Array.find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.find(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 (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	275048.6 Ops/sec
Array.filter	87836.2 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1232578.2 Ops/sec
Array.includes	5309532.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	285995.7 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of four different methods for finding an element in an array:

1. `some()`
2. `filter()`
3. `indexOf()`
4. `includes()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2019)

The test cases use two arrays: `hasZero` and `withoutZero`. The arrays contain 10,000 random integers between 0 and 1000.

**Options Being Compared**

Here's a brief overview of each option being compared:

1. **Array.some()**: This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array passes the provided test.
2. **Array.filter()**: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass the provided test.
3. **Array.indexOf()**: This method returns the index of the first element that passes the provided test, or -1 if no such element exists.
4. **Array.includes()** (introduced in ECMAScript 2019): This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array is equal to the specified value.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief pros and cons summary for each option:

1. **Array.some()**:
	* Pros: concise, easy to understand, efficient for large arrays.
	* Cons: can be slow for small arrays due to unnecessary iterations.
2. **Array.filter()**:
	* Pros: creates a new array with the desired elements, can be used for more complex filtering.
	* Cons: creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive; slower than some() for large arrays.
3. **Array.indexOf()**:
	* Pros: efficient for small arrays, allows for early exit if no element is found.
	* Cons: slower than some() and filter() for large arrays due to binary search algorithm; returns an index, not a boolean value.
4. **Array.includes()** (introduced in ECMAScript 2019):
	* Pros: concise, efficient for small arrays, allows for early exit if no element is found.
	* Cons: relatively new feature, may not be supported by older browsers or environments.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there are no libraries used. However, the `Array.includes()` method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019, which means it's a relatively recent addition to the JavaScript standard.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative methods for finding an element in an array include:

* `forEach()`: iterates over the array and calls a callback function on each element.
* `every()`: returns `true` if all elements in the array pass the provided test.
* `map()`, `reduce()`, or other array methods that use iteration.

However, these alternatives are not as efficient or concise as the four options being compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find [CORRECTED] (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):