Benchmark: find vs includes vs indexof

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus']

Tests:

find
array.find(f => f == 'banana' );
includes
array.includes('banana');
indexOf
array.indexOf('banana');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
includes
indexOf

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 measures the performance of three different methods to search for a specific value in an array:

1. `array.find()`
2. `array.includes()`
3. `array.indexOf()`

These methods are used to find the index of the first occurrence of a specified element within an array, similar to the traditional `indexOf()` method.

**Method Comparison**

The three methods being compared differ in their approach and behavior:

1. **`find()`**: This method returns the first element that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, `f == 'banana'`). If no such element exists, it returns `undefined`. Unlike `includes()` and `indexOf()`, `find()` does not search the entire array; it only searches until it finds a match.
2. **`includes()`**: This method checks if an element is present in the array using a simple membership test. It iterates through the array to find the first occurrence of the specified value, returning `true` if found or `false` otherwise.
3. **`indexOf()`**: Similar to `find()`, this method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified element within the array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`find()`**:
	* Pros: more concise, easier to use with arrow functions.
	* Cons: may return `undefined` if no match is found, can be slower for large arrays due to early termination.
2. **`includes()`**:
	* Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: may be slower than `indexOf()` for very large arrays, as it iterates through the array even after finding a match.
3. **`indexOf()`**:
	* Pros: reliable, fast, and well-established.
	* Cons: can be less concise and more verbose compared to `find()`, requires explicit index management.

**Library Usage**

None of the methods rely on external libraries, making them self-contained and easy to use with minimal setup.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the methods rely on special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. They are all standard method calls and can be used without any additional context.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to searching for an element in an array include:

1. **`for...of` loop**: A more traditional, explicit way to iterate through the array.
2. **`Array.prototype.forEach()`**: A callback-based approach that allows iterating through the array while executing a custom function for each element.
3. **Native `binarySearch()` method** (not shown in this benchmark): An optimized algorithm for finding an element in a sorted array.

The specific choice of method ultimately depends on the desired behavior, performance characteristics, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	486926400.0 Ops/sec
includes	46554080.0 Ops/sec
indexOf	46338924.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

find vs includes vs indexof (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs includes vs indexOf

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

includes

indexOf

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):