Benchmark: easd Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(String(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)));
  withoutZero.push(String(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1))
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === "0") : withoutZero.some(v => v === "0");
Array.filter
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === "0") : withoutZero.filter(v => v === "0");
Array.indexOf
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf("0") > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf("0") > -1;
Array.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.includes("0") : withoutZero.includes("0");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares four different approaches to check if an element exists in an array:

1. `Array.some()`
2. `Array.filter()`
3. `Array.indexOf()`
4. `Array.includes()`

Each approach is compared using a similar test case, which generates two arrays of 10,000 random strings: `hasZero` and `withoutZero`. The test case checks if the string "0" exists in each array.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses several libraries:

1. `Math.random()` - a built-in JavaScript function that returns a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive).
2. `String()` - a built-in JavaScript function that converts a value to a string.
3. `Array.some()`, `Array.filter()`, `Array.indexOf()`, and `Array.includes()` - these are native JavaScript array methods.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in the benchmark that would require a deep understanding of JavaScript.

**Approach Comparison**

The four approaches being compared have different pros and cons:

1. **`Array.some()`**: This method returns `true` as soon as it finds an element in the array that satisfies the condition. If no elements satisfy the condition, it returns `false`. Pros: efficient for large arrays where only one element needs to be found. Cons: may return faster than other methods even if they find all matching elements.
2. **`Array.filter()`**: This method returns a new array containing only the elements that satisfy the condition. Pros: can be used to create a new array with filtered elements, even if no elements are found. Cons: creates a new array and may be slower than other methods for large arrays where only one element needs to be found.
3. **`Array.indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value in the array. If the value is not found, it returns -1. Pros: efficient for finding a single element by its index. Cons: may return faster than other methods even if they find all matching elements.
4. **`Array.includes()`**: This method returns `true` if the array contains an element that matches the specified value. Pros: concise and easy to read, especially for simple cases. Cons: may be slower than other methods for large arrays or complex comparisons.

**Test Case Interpretation**

The test case generates two arrays of 10,000 random strings. The benchmark then checks if each string is equal to "0" in both arrays using the four approaches. The results are compared based on the number of executions per second.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for checking array elements include:

1. `Array.includes()` variants: some browsers have proprietary includes() methods (e.g., Safari's hasIncludes() method).
2. Custom implementations: developers can create their own custom functions to check array elements, which may offer better performance or additional features.
3. Third-party libraries: there are various third-party libraries available that provide optimized array search functions.

Keep in mind that the specific use case and requirements will influence the choice of approach.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	179751.7 Ops/sec
Array.filter	66707.2 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	276448.8 Ops/sec
Array.includes	8588360.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

easd Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.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):