Benchmark: Border test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strArr = [
    "x1y0",
    "x1y1",
    "x2y0",
    "x3y1",
    "x1y3",
    "x1y4",
    "x3y3",
    "x2y4"
]

var objArr = [{
        x: 1,
        y: 1
    },
    {
        x: 2,
        y: 0
    },
    {
        x: 3,
        y: 1
    },
    {
        x: 1,
        y: 3
    },
    {
        x: 1,
        y: 4
    },
    {
        x: 3,
        y: 3
    },
    {
        x: 2,
        y: 4
    }
]

Tests:

indexOf
strArr.forEach(str => { const index = strArr.indexOf(str) })
find
objArr.forEach(pos => { const index = objArr.find(p => { return (pos.x === p.x && pos.y === p.y) }) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark, "Border test", measures the performance of two JavaScript methods: `indexOf` and `find`. The benchmark creates an array of strings (`strArr`) and objects (`objArr`) with varying lengths and structures. The goal is to find the index or position of a specific element within these arrays.

**Methods Compared**

Two methods are compared in this benchmark:

1. `Array.prototype.indexOf()`
2. `Array.prototype.find()` (with optional callback function)

**Options Compared:**

* **Linear search**: `indexOf` uses a linear search algorithm, which checks each element in the array until it finds a match.
	+ Pros:
		- Simple to implement
		- Fast for small arrays
	+ Cons:
		- Slow for large arrays (O(n))
* **Binary search**: `find` uses a binary search algorithm, which divides the array into smaller subarrays and searches for the target element in each one.
	+ Pros:
		- Faster than linear search for large arrays (O(log n))
		- More efficient for arrays with multiple occurrences of the target element
	+ Cons:
		- Requires a sorted array
		- May not perform well for small arrays

**Additional Considerations:**

* The `indexOf` method returns `-1` if the element is not found in the array. In contrast, `find` returns `undefined`.
* Both methods have a time complexity of O(n) for large arrays, but `find` has an additional overhead due to the callback function.
* For very small arrays (e.g., < 10 elements), linear search may be faster than binary search.

**Library and Special JS Features:**

* The benchmark uses the built-in `Array.prototype.forEach()` method to iterate over the arrays. This is a standard JavaScript method that iterates over an array and executes a callback function for each element.
* There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches:**

If you need to optimize your code, consider using:

* `Array.prototype.findIndex()` instead of `indexOf`, which returns the index of the first occurrence of the target element (or -1 if not found).
* A more efficient data structure, such as a hash table or binary search tree, for large arrays.
* A just-in-time (JIT) compiler or parallel processing to speed up execution.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant changes to your code and are generally only necessary for production environments.

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf	3395547.2 Ops/sec
find	3030838.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Border test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs find

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

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):