Benchmark: benchmark filter vs findIndex

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.filter
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
Array.find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.findIndex(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.filter
Array.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 20 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two ways of filtering arrays: `Array.prototype.find()` (or `Array.prototype.findIndex()`) and `Array.prototype.filter()`. The test creates two arrays, `hasZero` and `withoutZero`, each containing 10,000 random numbers. The `filter()` method is used to find elements in the arrays that are equal to 0, while the `find()` method finds the first element that matches a certain condition.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Array.prototype.filter()**: This method returns an array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.
2. **Array.prototype.findIndex()**: This method returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function.

**Pros and Cons:**

* `Array.prototype.filter()`:
	+ Pros:
		- More intuitive and easier to read, as it explicitly filters elements.
		- Can be more efficient for larger arrays, since it only iterates over elements that are likely to match the condition.
	+ Cons:
		- Returns an array with all matching elements, which can be unnecessary if only one element is found.
		- May have higher overhead due to the creation of a new array.
* `Array.prototype.findIndex()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Returns the index of the first matching element, making it more efficient for finding a single match.
		- Can be faster than `filter()`, especially when only one element is expected to match.
	+ Cons:
		- Less intuitive and less readable, as it uses an index instead of returning elements directly.
		- May not be suitable for all use cases, where the returned index needs to be processed further.

**Library usage:**

The benchmark uses the built-in `Math.random()` function, which is a part of JavaScript's standard library. This function generates random numbers within the range [0, 1).

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark that are not part of the standard language.

**Other alternatives:**

For larger arrays, other optimization techniques like using `Array.prototype.map()` or `Set` data structures might be more efficient. However, these approaches would require additional setup and may have different pros and cons compared to `filter()` and `findIndex()`.

It's worth noting that the benchmark is specifically designed to compare the performance of two common array methods in JavaScript. The results provided by MeasureThat.net can help developers make informed decisions about which method to use depending on their specific requirements and performance constraints.

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/116.0.1938.76

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.filter	70334.7 Ops/sec
Array.find	174820.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

benchmark filter vs findIndex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.filter vs Array.find

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.filter

Array.find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 20 days ago):