Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf 1

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.for
var data = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero : withoutZero; var action = (a) => a === 0; var length = data.length; var tempResult = false; for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) { const tempResult = action(data[i], i); if (tempResult === true) { break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different methods for checking if an array contains zero:

1. `Array.some()`
2. `Array.filter()`
3. `Array.indexOf()` (for exact matching)

**Script Preparation Code**

This script creates two arrays: `hasZero` and `withoutZero`. The first array contains 10,000 random integers between 0 and 999, while the second array contains the same range of numbers, but with an additional element that is 1 more than a random integer.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark is executed in a headless browser environment ( likely using Selenium or Puppeteer).

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` and corresponding "Test Name". The definitions are as follows:

1. **Array.some()**
```javascript
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
```
This method uses the `some()` function to check if at least one element in the array satisfies the condition.

2. **Array.filter()**
```javascript
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
```
This method uses the `filter()` function to create a new array containing only elements that satisfy the condition.

3. **Array.indexOf()**
```javascript
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
```
This method uses the `indexOf()` function to find the index of the first occurrence of the specified element (in this case, 0).

4. **Array.for**
```javascript
var data = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero : withoutZero;
var action = (a) => a === 0;
var length = data.length;
var tempResult = false;

for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
  const tempResult = action(data[i], i);
  if (tempResult === true) break;
}
```
This method uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and check each element using the provided action function.

**Comparison of Methods**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four methods in terms of executions per second. The results indicate that:

* `Array.indexOf()` is the fastest method, likely because it uses a direct search algorithm with a single pass through the array.
* `Array.for` is slower than `Array.some()` and `Array.filter()`, but still relatively fast due to its simple loop structure.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each method:

1. **Array.indexOf()**
	* Pros: Fast, direct search algorithm.
	* Cons: Only returns the index of the first occurrence, not a boolean result.
2. **Array.some()**
	* Pros: Returns a boolean result indicating whether at least one element satisfies the condition.
	* Cons: May perform unnecessary iterations if no elements satisfy the condition.
3. **Array.filter()**
	* Pros: Creates a new array with only satisfying elements, returning a boolean result.
	* Cons: May create additional memory allocations and copying of data.
4. **Array.for**
	* Pros: Simple loop structure, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May be slower due to unnecessary iterations or unnecessary checks.

**Other Considerations**

* Using `Array.some()` and `Array.filter()` can lead to better performance if the condition is expensive to evaluate, as they avoid unnecessary iterations.
* `Array.indexOf()` may not be suitable for cases where you need to find multiple occurrences or check for a specific range of values.
* `Array.for` is often slower than other methods due to its simple loop structure and lack of optimization.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these methods include:

* Using `Array.prototype.every()` instead of `Array.some()`
* Using `Array.prototype.includes()` instead of `Array.indexOf()`
* Using a custom function or regular expression to check for the condition
* Using a specialized library like Lodash for array manipulation

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 130 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	57754.9 Ops/sec
Array.filter	18655.1 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	467020.0 Ops/sec
Array.for	128707.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf 1 (version: 0)

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.for

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):