Benchmark: filter + pop VS reverse + find

Tests:

revere + find
const arr = [{name: 'jean',index: 1},{name: 'mark',index: 2},{name: 'jean',index: 3}, {name: 'mark',index: 4}] for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ const item = arr.reverse().find(item => item.name === 'jean') }
filter + pop
const arr = [{name: 'jean',index: 1},{name: 'mark',index: 2},{name: 'jean',index: 3}, {name: 'mark',index: 4}] for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ const item = arr.filter(item => item.name === 'jean').pop() }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
revere + find
filter + pop

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 being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to find an item in an array:

1. **Reverse + Find**: This approach reverses the entire array and then uses the `find()` method to locate a specific item.
2. **Filter + Pop**: This approach filters out all items except the one of interest using `filter()`, and then uses `pop()` to retrieve that single item.

**Comparison of options**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **Reverse + Find**: Pros:
	+ Can be more efficient for larger arrays, as it only requires a single pass through the reversed array.
	+ Can be easier to understand for developers familiar with array manipulation.
* Cons:
	+ Requires extra memory to store the reversed array.
	+ May be slower due to the overhead of reversing the entire array.

* **Filter + Pop**: Pros:
	+ Only requires a single pass through the original array.
	+ Does not require extra memory storage.
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower for very large arrays, as it needs to create multiple intermediate arrays during filtering and popping.
	+ May be less efficient due to the overhead of repeated array method calls.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript arrays have built-in methods like `reverse()`, `find()`, `filter()`, and `pop()` which are likely used by MeasureThat.net for its benchmarks.

**Special JS features/syntax**

The benchmark tests do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard array manipulation methods. The focus is on comparing the performance of two specific algorithms, rather than showcasing cutting-edge language features.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to find an item in an array, here are a few examples:

* **Binary search**: A more efficient approach for finding an item in a sorted array, which can be implemented using bitwise operations.
* **Hashing**: Using a hash function to map the item's name to an index in the array, and then searching for that index.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be suitable for all scenarios or use cases, and may require additional considerations like caching, collision resolution, or handling edge cases.

In summary, MeasureThat.net provides a simple yet informative benchmarking platform for comparing the performance of different algorithms on JavaScript arrays. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which methods to use in their own projects.

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/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
revere + find	6956.1 Ops/sec
filter + pop	3563.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

filter + pop VS reverse + find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: revere + find vs filter + pop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

revere + find

filter + pop

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):