Benchmark: filter vs some vs includes

Tests:

filter
[1, 2, 3].filter(x => x === 3).length !== 0
some
[1, 2, 3].some(x => x === 3)
includes
[1, 2, 3].includes(3)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
some
includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark with three test cases: `filter`, `some`, and `includes`. These test cases compare the performance of these three methods for filtering or checking if an element exists in an array.

**Benchmark Definition**

The Benchmark Definition JSON defines the three test cases:

* `filter`: `[1, 2, 3].filter(x => x === 3).length !== 0`
* `some`: `[1, 2, 3].some(x => x === 3)`
* `includes`: `[1, 2, 3].includes(3)`

These test cases are designed to measure the performance of each method in terms of the number of executions per second.

**Methods Compared**

The three methods compared are:

1. **`filter()`**: This method creates a new array with only the elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.
2. **`some()`**: This method returns `true` as soon as the callback function returns `true`. If the array is empty, it returns `false`.
3. **`includes()`**: This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array matches the specified value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **`filter()`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient for large arrays, as it only iterates over elements that pass the test.
	* Cons: Creates a new array, which can lead to increased memory usage.
2. **`some()`**:
	* Pros: Returns `true` as soon as the condition is met, making it faster for small arrays or when checking for existence.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to its lazy evaluation nature.
3. **`includes()`**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for simple array checks, as it uses a binary search algorithm under the hood.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for large arrays or complex searches.

**Library Used**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing the performance of built-in methods (`filter()`, `some()`, and `includes()`).

**Other Alternatives**

For more complex filtering or searching tasks, other alternatives might include:

1. **`map()`**, **`forEach()`**, or **`reduce()`**: These methods can be used to manipulate arrays and perform operations on each element.
2. **Third-party libraries**: Depending on the specific use case, third-party libraries like Lodash or Ramda might provide additional functionality for filtering or searching arrays.

Keep in mind that the choice of method ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	16801034.0 Ops/sec
some	49817604.0 Ops/sec
includes	44032364.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

filter vs some vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs some vs includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

some

includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):