Benchmark: at vs find - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];

Tests:

at
var test = arr.at(10);
find
var test = arr.find(item => item === 10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
at
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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing two methods: `arr.at(10)` and `arr.find(item => item === 10)`. The goal is to determine which method is faster.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an array `arr` with 11 elements:
```javascript
var arr = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
```
This code is executed before each test case.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is empty, which means no additional HTML is generated for these tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `at`:
```javascript
var test = arr.at(10);
```
This test case attempts to access the 11th element of the array using the `at()` method.

2. `find`:
```javascript
var test = arr.find(item => item === 10);
```
This test case uses the `find()` method with a callback function to find an element in the array that matches the condition `item === 10`.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark, but `at()` and `find()` are built-in methods of JavaScript arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. `arr.at(10)`:
	* Pros: Direct access to an element by index can be faster.
	* Cons: Throws an error if the index is out of bounds, which might not be immediately apparent in this specific case where the array has more elements than indices.
2. `arr.find(item => item === 10)`:
	* Pros: More flexible and robust, as it doesn't require knowing the exact index of the element to find.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of iterating over the array.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, you could consider:

1. Using `slice()` instead of `at()`: `arr.slice(10)` would return a new array with the 11th element.
2. Using a loop to find an element: `for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { if (arr[i] === 10) break; }`
3. Using `indexOf()` instead of `find()`: `arr.indexOf(10)` returns the index of the first occurrence of 10, or -1 if not found.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark!

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/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
at	11089276.0 Ops/sec
find	10452954.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

at vs find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: at vs find

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

at

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):