Benchmark: indexof vs findindex with object equality

Script Preparation code:

var arr = Array(15000);
var toFind = {id: 1}

arr.fill({id: 0})
arr[Math.floor(Math.random() * 15000)] = toFind

Tests:

findindex
arr.findIndex(o => o === toFind)
indexof
arr.indexOf(toFind)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
findindex
indexof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 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 comparing two ways to find an element in an array: `arr.indexOf(toFind)` and `arr.findIndex(o => o === toFind)`. The test case uses JavaScript and measures the performance of these two approaches on a large array (`15000` elements).

**What's Being Tested?**

* `arr.indexOf(toFind)`:
	+ This method returns the index of the first occurrence of `toFind` in the array.
	+ It has a time complexity of O(n), where n is the length of the array, because it needs to scan the entire array from start to end.
* `arr.findIndex(o => o === toFind)`:
	+ This method returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the condition `o === toFind`.
	+ It has a time complexity of O(n) as well, but with a more efficient algorithm than `indexOf`. The function uses a binary search approach under the hood.
	+ However, since JavaScript doesn't support `===` directly on objects (due to object reference sharing), it needs to use the `==` operator instead, which can lead to slower performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* `arr.indexOf(toFind)`:
	+ Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Time complexity of O(n) makes it slower for large arrays.
* `arr.findIndex(o => o === toFind)`:
	+ Pros: More efficient algorithm, but requires support for the `===` operator on objects.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported due to object reference sharing.

**Library/Functionality Used**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `Array.prototype.indexOf()` and `Array.prototype.findIndex()` are built-in JavaScript methods that don't require any additional libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special or experimental JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're concerned about the performance of `arr.indexOf(toFind)` for large arrays, you could consider:

* Using a more efficient data structure, like a hash table (if possible).
* Optimizing the search algorithm using techniques like caching or binary search.
* Using a different programming language that supports faster lookup operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to your codebase and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
findindex	1759.0 Ops/sec
indexof	355598.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

indexof vs findindex with object equality (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: findindex vs indexof

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

findindex

indexof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):