Benchmark: filter+pop VS reverse+find VS filter+at

Tests:

revere and 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 and 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() }
filter and at
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').at(-1) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
revere and find
filter and pop
filter and at

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing three different approaches to find an item in an array based on a specific condition:

1. `reverse()` + `find()`: Reversing the entire array and then using `find()` to locate an item that meets a certain condition (in this case, finding an object with `name` property equal to `'jean'`).
2. `filter()` + `pop()`: Using `filter()` to create a new array containing only items that meet a certain condition (again, finding objects with `name` property equal to `'jean'`), and then using `pop()` to retrieve the last item from the filtered array.
3. `filter()` + `at(-1)`: Similar to the previous approach, but instead of using `pop()`, it uses the new `at()` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2022) to access the last item in the filtered array.

**What options are compared?**

The three test cases compare the performance of these three approaches:

* **`reverse()` + `find()`**: This approach is generally slower because reversing an entire array requires more CPU cycles.
* **`filter()` + `pop()`**: This approach creates a new array with all items that meet the condition, which can be memory-intensive if the original array is large. However, it's often faster than reversing the entire array.
* **`filter()` + `at(-1)`**: This approach is similar to the previous one but uses the more efficient `at()` method instead of `pop()`. The difference in performance between these two approaches may be small.

**Pros and cons:**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **`reverse()` + `find()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple implementation.
	+ Cons: Generally slower due to the overhead of reversing an entire array.
* **`filter()` + `pop()`**:
	+ Pros: Often faster than reversing the entire array.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array with all items that meet the condition, which can be memory-intensive.
* **`filter()` + `at(-1)`**:
	+ Pros: More efficient than using `pop()`.
	+ Cons: May not be available in older browsers or environments (the test results show Chrome 117 running on Mac OS X 10.15.7).

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* The size of the original array.
* The specificity of the condition being searched for.
* The performance requirements of your application.

If you need to find an item in a large array frequently, using `filter()` and `at(-1)` might be a good choice. However, if you only need to perform this operation occasionally or with a small array, the simplicity of `reverse()` + `find()` might outweigh its performance limitations.

**Library usage**

There is no library mentioned in the provided JSON data. The benchmark tests rely solely on built-in JavaScript methods and syntax.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test cases use some modern JavaScript features, including:

* Array methods like `filter()`, `pop()`, and `at()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2022).
* Arrow functions for simplicity.
* Template literals for formatting strings.

These features are widely supported in modern browsers and environments.

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 and find	12252.7 Ops/sec
filter and pop	7262.4 Ops/sec
filter and at	7502.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: revere and find vs filter and pop vs filter and at

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

revere and find

filter and pop

filter and at

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one month ago):