Benchmark: find-iter-please

Script Preparation code:

async function find(it, f) {
  for await (let v of it)
    if (f(v)) return v; 
}

Tests:

Array.find
let found = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].find(x => x == 800)
Iter find
let found = find([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], x => x == 800)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.find
Iter 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.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for finding an element in an array: `Array.find` and `find` (a custom implementation). The test cases use JavaScript, which is a high-level programming language used for client-side scripting on the web.

**Comparison of Array.find and custom find implementations**

The two test cases are:

1. **Array.find**: This uses the built-in `Array.find()` method, which takes an optional callback function as its first argument. The callback function is called with each element in the array, and the first element that returns a truthy value from the callback is returned.
2. **Iter find** (custom implementation): This is the custom implementation of `find` provided in the benchmark code. It uses a for...of loop to iterate over the array, calling a provided function (`f`) on each element. If the function returns a truthy value, the corresponding element is returned.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Array.find**:
	* Pros: Built-in method, likely optimized for performance by the browser engine.
	* Cons: May have limitations in terms of supported data structures or edge cases.
2. **Iter find (custom implementation)**:
	* Pros: Allows for more control over iteration and callback functions, potentially leading to better performance in specific scenarios.
	* Cons: Requires manual iteration and handling of potential errors.

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches rely on the presence of an element with a matching property value. If no such element exists, both methods will return `undefined`.
* The custom implementation (`Iter find`) uses a for...of loop, which is designed for iterating over iterable objects like arrays. This may not work as expected if used with other types of data structures.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that in real-world scenarios, you might need to consider using libraries or frameworks that provide optimized implementations of these methods or offer alternative approaches.

**Special JS Features and Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's inherent to the language itself.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for finding an element in an array, consider the following:

* `Array.prototype.some()` (ECMAScript 2015): Similar to `Array.find()`, but returns as soon as it finds a match.
* Using `indexOf()` or `lastIndexOf()` methods: These can be used with arrays and return the index of the first occurrence of an element, which you can then use to find the element.

These alternatives may not offer the same level of control or performance as the custom implementation (`Iter find`) shown in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) snap Chromium/79.0.3945.117 Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chromium 79 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.find	111380136.0 Ops/sec
Iter find	671798.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

find-iter-please (version: 0)

test find iter against Array.find

Comparing performance of: Array.find vs Iter find

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.find

Iter 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):