Benchmark: fjlaksjfskjf - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [{
        id: "1",
        value: "thing"
    },
    {
        id: "2",
        value: "thingo"
    },
    {
        id: "3",
        value: "bing"
    },
    {
        id: "4",
        value: "bong"
    },
    {
        id: "5",
        value: "king"
    },
];

var tests = ["2", "5"]

Tests:

array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid))
array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid))
array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))
array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid))
array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))

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 what's being tested on the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JavaScript code snippet that defines two functions:

1. `array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid))`
2. `array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))`

These functions are designed to filter an array of objects based on whether the object's "id" property matches any value in the `tests` array.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using the `some()` method with a callback function that checks for equality using `===`.
2. Using the `includes()` method to check if an element is present in the `tests` array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `some()` method**: This approach can be faster when there are many elements in the `tests` array, as it stops iterating as soon as it finds a match. However, it may not be suitable for small arrays or arrays with only one element.
2. **Using `includes()` method**: This approach is generally slower than `some()`, especially for large arrays, because it iterates through the entire array to find a match. However, it is more concise and readable.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond the built-in JavaScript methods (`filter()`, `some()`, and `includes()`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider the following:

* The size of the `tests` array. For very large arrays, using `some()` might be faster.
* The distribution of values in the `tests` array. If there are many unique values, using `includes()` might be slower.
* The performance characteristics of the browser and device being tested.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for filtering arrays in JavaScript include:

* Using a regular expression with `String.prototype.match()`
* Using a library like Lodash (`_.filter()` or `_some()`)
* Implementing a custom filtering function using a loop

However, these alternatives are not typically used in benchmarks like MeasureThat.net, which focuses on measuring the performance of built-in JavaScript methods.

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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid))	2927945.8 Ops/sec
array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))	3797363.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

fjlaksjfskjf (version: 0)

skfjslkdfj

Comparing performance of: array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid)) vs array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array.filter((task) => tests.some((testid) => task.id === testid))

array.filter((task) => tests.includes(task.id))

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):