Benchmark: Searching for an array element that satisfies certain requirements.

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [{
        id: 1,
        name: 'Authors',
        value: 'authors',
        default: 'authors'
    },
    {
        id: 2,
        name: 'Material',
        value: 'material',
        default: 'material'
    },
    {
        id: 3,
        name: 'Topics',
        value: 'topics',
        default: 'not topics'
    },
    {
        id: 4,
        name: 'Group',
        value: 'group',
        default: 'group'
    }
]

function isResetFiltersAvailableFind(arr) {
    const value = arr.find(item => {
        const defaultValue = item.default;
        const value = item.value;

        return defaultValue !== value;
    });

    return Boolean(value);
}


function isResetFiltersAvailableSome(arr) {
    return arr.some(item => {
        const defaultValue = item.default;
        const value = item.value;

        return defaultValue !== value;
    });
}


function isResetFiltersAvailableFor(arr) {
  for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
    const item = arr[i];
    const defaultValue = item.default;
    const value = item.value;

    if (defaultValue !== value) {
      return true;
    }
  }
  return false;
}

Tests:

with find
isResetFiltersAvailableFind(arr)
with some
isResetFiltersAvailableSome(arr)
with for
isResetFiltersAvailableFor(arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with find
with some
with for

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/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with find	7552796.5 Ops/sec
with some	13944824.0 Ops/sec
with for	13893484.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is testing the performance of three different methods to check if there are elements in an array where the `default` property value does not match the `value` property. The method used determines the loop or iteration mechanism employed:

1. `isResetFiltersAvailableFind(arr)`: Uses the `find()` method, which returns the first element that satisfies the condition.
2. `isResetFiltersAvailableSome(arr)`: Uses the `some()` method, which returns a boolean indicating whether at least one element satisfies the condition.
3. `isResetFiltersAvailableFor(arr)`: Uses a manual loop with `for` iterations.

**Options Compared:**

The three methods compared are:

1. **`find()`**: Uses an iterative approach to find the first matching element.
2. **`some()`**: Uses an iterative approach to check if any element matches the condition.
3. **Manual Loop (`for`)**: Employs a traditional loop to iterate over each element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. `find()`: Pros:
	* Efficient for finding the first matching element, as it returns immediately when found.
	* Typically faster than manual loops, especially in modern browsers with optimized implementations.
Cons:
	* May not be suitable for larger arrays or edge cases where no match is expected.
2. `some()`: Pros:
	* Returns a boolean result, making it easy to use in conditional statements.
	* Can handle large arrays and edge cases efficiently.
Cons:
	* May be slower than `find()` due to the additional overhead of checking each element.
3. Manual Loop (`for`): Pros:
	* Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with traditional looping.
Cons:
	* Inefficient for larger arrays, as it requires iterating over each element individually.

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark assumes that the input array is not empty or null.
* The `default` and `value` properties are assumed to be strings.
* The `find()` method uses a linear search algorithm with a time complexity of O(n), where n is the length of the array. This can be optimized using more advanced algorithms like binary search for large arrays.

**Libraries Used:**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some libraries might influence the performance of these methods:

* `Array.prototype.find()`: Implemented by modern browsers as an internal method, but may use underlying algorithms or libraries.
* `Array.prototype.some()`: Also implemented by modern browsers, using a similar approach to `find()`.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's essential to consider other features like:

* `async/await` and `Promise`s for asynchronous code execution
* `let` and `const` declarations for variable scope and hoisting
* `arrow functions` and `template literals` for concise syntax

Keep in mind that these features may not directly impact the performance of this specific benchmark, but can affect JavaScript execution in general.

**Alternatives:**

If you'd like to explore alternative methods or libraries for similar benchmarks, consider:

* Using other array methods, such as `every()` or `some()`, with different parameters.
* Implementing custom loop-based solutions using `for` iterations.
* Utilizing specialized libraries for array operations, like Lodash or Underscore.js.

Feel free to ask if you'd like further clarification on any of these points!

Related benchmarks:

Searching for an array element that satisfies certain requirements. (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with find vs with some vs with for

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

with find

with some

with for

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):