Benchmark: Array find vs index match

Script Preparation code:

var identifiers = [ { "id": "000000000000000", "idType": "AUTHORIZATION_ID" }, { "id": null, "idType": "PAYMENT_INSTRUMENT_ID" }, { "id": "P927700ME00XVEB1T28620165602255723200221006253", "idType": "ID" }, { "id": "P927700ME00XVEB1T", "idType": "REFERENCE_NUMBER" }, { "id": "P9277002286001001860153", "idType": "EXPANDED_REFERENCE_NUMBER" } ];

Tests:

Array.find
const match = identifiers.find(i => i.idType === "ID");
Array index
const match = identifiers[2];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.find
Array index

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 JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` defines an array of objects called `identifiers`, each containing an `id` property with different values (numbers, strings, and null). This array will be used to test two different approaches for finding a specific element within the array.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Array.find()**: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, `i.idType === "ID"`).
2. **Array indexing**: Directly accessing an array element by its index (in this case, `identifiers[2]`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Array.find()**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and efficient for large arrays.
	+ Cons: may be slower than direct indexing in some cases, as it involves iterating through the array to find the matching element.
* **Array indexing**:
	+ Pros: potentially faster and more efficient for small arrays or when the index is known beforehand.
	+ Cons: less readable and more prone to errors if the array index changes.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in the provided data. However, it's worth noting that `Array.find()` is a built-in JavaScript method introduced in ECMAScript 2012 (ES6), which provides a concise way to find an element in an array based on a condition.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript programming constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer to avoid using `Array.find()`, other alternatives for finding an element in an array include:

1. **Using `forEach()` with a callback function**: Iterate through the array and perform an action on each element that matches the condition.
2. **Using `some()` and then indexing into the array**: Check if any element satisfies the condition, and then index into the array to retrieve the matched value.

Example:
```javascript
const match = identifiers.some(i => i.idType === "ID");
if (match) {
  const identifierIndex = identifiers.indexOf(match);
  console.log(identifierIndex); // prints the index of the matching element
}
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may be less efficient than using `Array.find()` for large arrays.

In summary, the provided benchmark tests two approaches to find an element within an array: `Array.find()` and direct indexing. The choice between these options depends on the specific use case, array size, and performance requirements.

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.find	26831662.0 Ops/sec
Array index	31682194.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array find vs index match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.find vs Array index

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.find

Array index

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):