Benchmark: Map and Find vs Filter and Includes

Script Preparation code:

options = []

for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    options.push({
        id: i
    })
}

value = [Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000), Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000), Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000), Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000), Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)]

Tests:

Map and find
value.map(id => options.find(option => option.id === id))
Filter and Includes
options.filter(option => value.includes(option.id))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map and find
Filter and Includes

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 JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array of objects based on their `id` property:

1. **Map and Find**: Using `Array.prototype.map()` followed by `Array.prototype.find()`.
2. **Filter and Includes**: Using `Array.prototype.filter()` followed by checking the resulting array for the presence of a specific value using `includes()`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

a. Map and Find: This approach uses `map()` to create a new array with transformed objects, and then uses `find()` to search for the first object that matches a condition.
b. Filter and Includes: This approach uses `filter()` to create a new array with filtered objects, and then checks the resulting array for the presence of a specific value using `includes()`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Map and Find**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient if you need to perform additional transformations on each object in the resulting array.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array with all transformed objects, which can lead to increased memory usage. Also, if you're only looking for the first matching element, `find()` is generally faster than `includes()`.
* **Filter and Includes**:
	+ Pros: Does not create a new array with all elements, reducing memory usage. Also, checks for presence in the resulting array is often faster than searching an array created by `map()` or other methods.
	+ Cons: Can be slower if you need to perform additional operations on each element in the resulting array.

**Library and purpose**

There are no specific libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` instead of `map()` and then searching for the first matching element.
* Using a custom loop to iterate over the array and check each element individually.
* Using `Array.prototype.some()` or `Array.prototype every()` instead of `includes()`.
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides a function `findIndex()` that can be used as an alternative to `find()`.

It's worth noting that MeasureThat.net is designed to provide a simple and fair comparison between different approaches, so it's not necessarily about finding the absolute most efficient solution.

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Map and find	389372.6 Ops/sec
Filter and Includes	18070.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map and Find vs Filter and Includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map and find vs Filter and Includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map and find

Filter and Includes

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):