Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes

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.includes(0) : withoutZero.includes(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

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests four different approaches for checking if an array contains a specific value: `some()`, `filter()`, `indexOf()`, and `includes()`.

**What is tested on the provided json?**

In this benchmark, we have two arrays:

1. `hasZero`: an array containing 10,000 random integers between 0 and 999.
2. `withoutZero`: an array containing 10,000 random integers between 0 and 999, but with one additional value (1000).

The benchmark checks the performance of each approach on both arrays:

* `some()`: returns `true` if at least one element in the array satisfies the condition.
* `filter()`: returns a new array containing only the elements that satisfy the condition.
* `indexOf()`: returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if not found.
* `includes()`: returns `true` if the array contains the specified value.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach on the two arrays:

| Approach | Array | Method |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `some()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Iterates through the array, checking for presence |
| `filter()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Creates a new array with elements that satisfy the condition |
| `indexOf()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Searches for the specified value in the array |
| `includes()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Checks if the array contains the specified value |

**Pros and Cons**

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

* `some()`: Pros:
	+ Simple to implement
	+ Fast for small arrays
	+ Suitable for finding any element, not just exact matches
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower than other methods for large arrays
	+ Returns true if any element satisfies the condition, regardless of order
* `filter()`: Pros:
	+ Creates a new array with filtered elements, which can be useful for further processing
	+ Suitable for finding all matching elements in the correct order
* Cons:
	+ Requires creating a new array, which can be memory-intensive
	+ Slower than other methods for large arrays
* `indexOf()`: Pros:
	+ Returns the index of the first occurrence, making it suitable for finding a specific element
	+ Can be faster than other methods for exact matches
* Cons:
	+ May return -1 if the value is not found
	+ Not suitable for finding any element that satisfies the condition
* `includes()`: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient for checking presence
	+ Suitable for both small and large arrays
* Cons:
	+ Returns true or false, but not an index

**Other considerations**

* `some()` and `filter()` are often used together to implement more complex checks.
* `indexOf()` is commonly used with `slice()` or `substring()` to extract a specific part of the array.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may use libraries like V8 (Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (Firefox) under the hood.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to these methods, here are a few options:

* For `some()` and `filter()`, you can also use `every()` and `map()` respectively.
* For `indexOf()`, you can use `findIndex()` as an alternative.
* For `includes()`, you can use `reduce()` or other accumulation-based approaches to implement a custom check.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, and some might be more suitable for your specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	151472.8 Ops/sec
Array.filter	40807.6 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1047656.9 Ops/sec
Array.includes	1051635.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes (version: 0)

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

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):