Benchmark: Object arrays: findIndex vs for loop 22

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(300);
arr.fill({
    id: 0
});
arr = arr.map((el, idx) => el.id = idx);
var foo = Math.floor(Math.random() * 15000);

Tests:

findIndex
arr.findIndex((itm) => itm.id === foo);
for loop
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { if (arr[i].id === foo) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
findIndex
for loop

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches for finding an element in an array: `findIndex` and a traditional `for` loop.

**Options compared**

* `findIndex`: This method returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition. In this case, we're using it to find an element with `id` equal to a randomly generated number (`foo`).
* `for loop`: This is a traditional iteration approach where we use a counter variable (`i`) to iterate through each element in the array and check if its `id` matches the target value. If found, we break out of the loop.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* `findIndex`:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, especially for large arrays. It's also concise and easy to read.
	+ Cons: May not be as intuitive for developers who are not familiar with array methods. Additionally, if the condition is complex or involves multiple checks, it might lead to performance issues due to the overhead of function calls.
* `for loop`:
	+ Pros: Can be more flexible and easier to understand for developers who are comfortable with traditional iteration. It also allows for easy addition of additional logic before or after the comparison.
	+ Cons: Typically slower than `findIndex`, especially for large arrays, due to the overhead of iteration and checking each element individually.

**Other considerations**

* Performance: Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of performance. However, for large arrays, `findIndex` is usually faster.
* Code readability: While `findIndex` can be concise, some developers might find it harder to understand due to the lack of explicit iteration logic. On the other hand, `for loop` can be more readable, but may require more code.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond the built-in JavaScript array methods and functions (e.g., `Math.floor`, `Math.random`). However, MeasureThat.net might use some internal libraries or utilities to manage the benchmarking process.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a straightforward comparison of two basic approaches for finding an element in an array.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other approaches, you could consider adding additional test cases, such as:

* Using `forEach` and checking if the callback is executed
* Using `every` and checking if all elements match the condition
* Using a custom loop with a different iteration strategy (e.g., using a queue or a stack)
* Using parallel processing or concurrent execution for large arrays

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
findIndex	76952.4 Ops/sec
for loop	26105.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Object arrays: findIndex vs for loop 22 (version: 0)

Testing finding an object array via findIndex or by using a for loop

Comparing performance of: findIndex vs for loop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

findIndex

for loop

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):