Benchmark: Array Includes vs. Find

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(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.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.includes(v => v === 0);
Array.find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.find(v => v === 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
Array.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests four different methods to check if an element exists in an array:

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

These methods are used to find out if at least one element in the array matches a given condition.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four methods under different conditions:

* Each method is tested on two arrays: `hasZero` (containing 0s and random numbers) and `withoutZero` (containing only random numbers greater than 0).
* The test is run multiple times (not specified in the provided data) to provide an average execution time.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Array.includes()**: This method is generally considered fast and efficient, as it uses a linear search algorithm that iterates through the array until it finds the first occurrence of the element.
	* Pros: Fast and simple implementation.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for very large arrays due to its linear search nature.
2. **Array.some()**: This method is similar to `Array.includes()` but returns a boolean value indicating whether at least one element matches the condition, rather than the index of the first occurrence.
	* Pros: Faster than `Array.indexOf()` for some cases, as it doesn't require finding the exact position of the element.
	* Cons: May be slower than `Array.includes()` for very large arrays due to its additional overhead.
3. **Array.filter()**: This method creates a new array containing only the elements that match the condition, and returns the length of this new array.
	* Pros: Can be faster than other methods for some cases, as it avoids the need to search through the entire array.
	* Cons: Creates a new array, which can consume memory. May not be suitable for very large arrays or situations where memory is limited.
4. **Array.indexOf()**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the element in the array. If the element is not found, it returns -1.
	* Pros: Fast and simple implementation. Can be used to find the exact position of an element.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for some cases, as it requires finding the exact position of the element.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark uses a library or framework that affects the test outcome. The results are presented in terms of raw execution time per second.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the tests mentioned use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect the outcome.

In summary, MeasureThat.net provides a useful comparison of different methods for checking if an element exists in an array, highlighting their performance characteristics and trade-offs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	176236.4 Ops/sec
Array.filter	40692.3 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1271292.5 Ops/sec
Array.includes	1000100.9 Ops/sec
Array.find	182416.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array Includes vs. Find (version: 0)

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

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Array.find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):