Benchmark: for with break vs Array.find()

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='test'></div>

Tests:

find
const arr = ['1', '2', '3']; let val = arr.find(node => node.id === '3');
for with break
const arr = ['1', '2', '3']; let val; for(i=0; i<arr.length; i++){ const value = arr[i]; if (value === '3') { val = value; break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
for with break

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	177601184.0 Ops/sec
for with break	142779072.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares two approaches: using `Array.find()` versus using a traditional `for` loop with a `break` statement. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for this specific use case.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is empty, which means that the benchmark starts from scratch each time it's run. This ensures that the results are not influenced by previous executions or external factors.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code provides a simple container (`<div id='test'></div>`) where the benchmark will render its output.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **`find`**: This test case uses the `Array.find()` method to search for an element with a specific property (`node.id === '3'`). The `find()` method returns the first matching element or `undefined` if no match is found.
2. **`for with break`**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array, searching for the desired value (`value === '3'`). When the condition is met, the loop breaks out of the iteration using the `break` statement.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **`Array.find()`**:
	+ Pros: concise, efficient, and modern.
	+ Cons: may have performance implications if the array is very large or the search criterion is complex.
* **Traditional `for` loop with `break`**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, easy to understand, and can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons: more verbose, less readable, and may not be as efficient as modern array methods.

**Library Usage**

In the provided code, there is no explicit library usage. However, some libraries like Lodash or Ramda might provide similar functions (e.g., `find()`), but they are not used in this benchmark.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the code snippets. The examples use standard JavaScript syntax for array iteration and conditional statements.

**Other Alternatives**

For searching arrays, other approaches could be:

* Using `indexOf()`: A method that returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if not found.
* Implementing a custom search function using bitwise operations (e.g., bit masks) to reduce the search space.
* Using a data structure like a trie or a suffix tree for efficient searching.

For iterating over arrays, other approaches could be:

* Using `forEach()`: A method that executes a callback function once for each element in an array.
* Implementing a custom loop using bitwise operations (e.g., bit masks) to reduce the number of iterations.
* Using a library like Iterables or more functional programming constructs.

Related benchmarks:

for with break vs Array.find() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs for with break

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

for with break

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):