Benchmark: for vs filter vs find 2

Script Preparation code:

const links = [{
    Rel: "modelSelectionSetup",
    Href: "http://localhost:8081/Embed/8184/4870/Setup/ComparisonSelection"
}, {
    Rel: "comparisonSetup",
    Method: "GET",
    Href: "http://localhost:8081/Embed/8184/4870/45/Setup/RangeComparison"
}];

Tests:

for
const links = [{ Rel: "modelSelectionSetup", Href: "http://localhost:8081/Embed/8184/4870/Setup/ComparisonSelection" }, { Rel: "comparisonSetup", Method: "GET", Href: "http://localhost:8081/Embed/8184/4870/45/Setup/RangeComparison" }]; for(let i=0; i<links.length; i++) { const link = links[i]; if (link.Rel == 'comparisonSetup') return link; }
filter
const links = [{ Rel: "modelSelectionSetup", Href: "http://localhost:8081/Embed/8184/4870/Setup/ComparisonSelection" }, { Rel: "comparisonSetup", Method: "GET", Href: "http://localhost:8081/Embed/8184/4870/45/Setup/RangeComparison" }]; return links.filter(x => x.Rel == 'comparisonSetup')[0];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript approaches is essential to understand how they impact the execution speed and efficiency of web applications.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares three methods: `for`, `filter`, and an implied iterative approach using indexing (`links[i]`). The goal is to find a specific link object in the `links` array based on its `Rel` property value, which should be `"comparisonSetup"`.

**Options Compared**

1. **For Loop**: A traditional `for` loop uses an incrementing index variable to iterate over the array elements.
2. **Filter Method**: The `filter()` method applies a callback function to each element of the array and returns a new array with only the elements that pass the test.
3. **Iterative Approach using Indexing**: This approach uses indexing (`links[i]`) to access individual array elements, assuming a fixed index.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **For Loop**:
	* Pros: Straightforward, easy to understand, and works well for small arrays.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large arrays due to the overhead of incrementing the index variable.
2. **Filter Method**:
	* Pros: Memory-efficient, as it only iterates over the elements that pass the test, making it suitable for large datasets.
	* Cons: May incur additional memory allocation and copying costs when creating the new filtered array.
3. **Iterative Approach using Indexing**:
	* Pros: Optimized for direct access to individual elements, potentially faster than the `for` loop or `filter()` method.
	* Cons: Assumes a fixed index, which might not be suitable if the array is dynamically resizing.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, it's essential to note that the `filter()` method relies on the ECMAScript 5 (ES5) standard, which introduced the `Array.prototype.filter()` method.

**Test Case Considerations**

The test cases use a simple array with two elements, making it easy to understand the differences between these approaches. However, for larger datasets, the performance differences may be more pronounced.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you were to implement this benchmark with alternative methods, consider the following:

1. **Reducing**: Instead of creating a new filtered array using `filter()`, you could use the `reduce()` method to accumulate the results in a single variable.
2. **forEach**: Similar to `for` loops, but optimized for performance and side-effect-free code.
3. **Array.prototype.some()` or `every()`: Another filtering approach that can be more memory-efficient than `filter()`.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might have different pros and cons compared to the original methods, depending on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	51753688.0 Ops/sec
filter	28321524.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs filter vs find 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs filter

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

filter

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):