Benchmark: Search: Array to Map and find vs Array.find 2

Script Preparation code:

data = [...Array(100000)].map((_, id) => ([ id,  Math.random() ]))

Tests:

Array to Map and find
const res = new Map(data).get(50)
Array.find
const res = data.find(([ id ]) => id === 50)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array to Map and find
Array.find

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 definition json and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures two different approaches for searching an array: `Array.find` and converting the array to a map (`Array.toMap`) followed by using the `get()` method. The goal is to determine which approach is faster in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array of 100,000 elements, where each element is an object with an `id` property and a random value. This creates a large dataset for testing.

**Options Compared**

Two approaches are being compared:

1. **Array.find**: This method takes a callback function that returns a boolean value indicating whether the element should be included in the result set. In this case, the callback function checks if the `id` property of each element is equal to 50.
2. **Array.toMap and get()**: This approach converts the array to a map (JavaScript object) using the `Map()` constructor. The map is then used to retrieve the value associated with the key `50`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Array.find**:
	+ Pros: Simple, concise, and widely supported by modern browsers.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient as other approaches, especially for very large datasets, since it iterates through the entire array until it finds a match.
* **Array.toMap and get()**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient than `Array.find` for very large datasets, since it uses a hash table lookup that can return results in constant time. This approach also avoids iterating through the entire array.
	+ Cons: Requires creating an additional data structure (the map), which may incur overhead for small to medium-sized datasets.

**Library and Its Purpose**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used beyond those provided by JavaScript itself. However, some modern browsers like Chrome provide optimized implementations of these methods, which may affect the results.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to searching an array.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to add more alternatives, some options might include:

* Using `for...of` loops instead of `Array.find`
* Converting the array to a set (`Set()` constructor) and using the `has()` method
* Using a third-party library like Lodash or Ramda for array manipulation
* Implementing a custom search algorithm that avoids iterating through the entire array

Keep in mind that each alternative would require additional code modifications and may introduce different trade-offs in terms of performance, simplicity, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array to Map and find	120.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	6637460.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Search: Array to Map and find vs Array.find 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array to Map and find vs Array.find

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array to Map and find

Array.find

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):