Benchmark: find by array loop vs Array.find

Script Preparation code:

   var arr = [];
   var max = 1000;
   var valueToFind = 500;
    for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
      arr[i] = Math.floor(Math.random()*max);     
    }

Tests:

arr.find
arr.find( item=>item===valueToFind);
find with for
const len=arr.length; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { arr[i]===valueToFind; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arr.find
find with for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for finding an element in an array: using the `Array.find()` method versus iterating through the array manually using a `for` loop.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Array.find()**: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition.
2. **Manual Iteration (for loop)**: This approach iterates through the array using a traditional `for` loop, checking each element individually to see if it matches the target value.

**Pros and Cons**

**Array.find():**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Fewer lines of code, making maintenance easier
* Typically faster for large arrays

Cons:

* May not be supported by older browsers or environments that don't have a `find()` method
* Can throw errors if the array is empty or the condition is not met

**Manual Iteration (for loop):**

Pros:

* More control over the iteration process, allowing for more complex conditions
* Works in older browsers and environments where `find()` may not be supported
* Can be useful for debugging purposes

Cons:

* More verbose code, making it harder to read and maintain
* Typically slower than using `find()`

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a random array generation script to create an array of 1000 elements, which can affect the results. A more controlled environment might produce different results.
* The test doesn't account for edge cases like duplicate values or null/undefined elements in the array.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the `Array.find()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function. There are no external libraries being used.

There are no special JavaScript features being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to find an element in an array include:

* Using the `indexOf()` method instead of `find()`, which returns the index of the first occurrence of the value, or -1 if it's not found.
* Using a `forEach` loop to iterate through the array and check each element individually.
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide additional utility functions for working with arrays.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and concise way to compare two approaches to finding an element in an array. However, the results may not be representative of real-world scenarios, and more complex edge cases should be considered when choosing between these methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/105.0.1343.33

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arr.find	14340.8 Ops/sec
find with for	7357.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

find by array loop vs Array.find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arr.find vs find with for

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arr.find

find with for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):