Benchmark: filter vs some vs includes vs find

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)
find
[1, 2, 3].find(x => x === 3) !== undefined

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
some
includes
find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	74157912.0 Ops/sec
some	155836816.0 Ops/sec
includes	1026402432.0 Ops/sec
find	14775286.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between four common array methods in JavaScript: `filter`, `some`, `includes`, and `find`. These methods are used to perform various operations on arrays, such as filtering out elements that meet a certain condition, checking if at least one element meets a condition, searching for an element within the array, or finding the first element that meets a condition.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four methods:

1. `filter`: Returns a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.
2. `some`: Returns a boolean value indicating whether at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function.
3. `includes`: Returns a boolean value indicating whether an array contains a certain element.
4. `find`: Returns the first element in the array that satisfies the testing function.

**Pros and Cons**

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

*   **`filter`**:
    *   Pros: Can be used to create a new array with filtered elements, can handle complex filtering logic.
    *   Cons: Returns a new array, which might incur additional memory overhead. Can be slower than other methods for large arrays due to the creation of an intermediate array.
*   **`some`**:
    *   Pros: More efficient than `filter` because it doesn't require creating a new array, can stop searching as soon as it finds a match.
    *   Cons: Returns a boolean value, which might not be as informative as returning the actual filtered elements. Can lead to unexpected behavior if used incorrectly.
*   **`includes`**:
    *   Pros: Very efficient because it only checks if an element is present in the array, doesn't require iterating over the entire array. Suitable for use cases where you need to check if a specific value exists within the array.
    *   Cons: Might not be suitable for all use cases since it returns a boolean value and doesn't preserve the original array order. Can be slower than `find` in some scenarios, depending on the browser and JavaScript engine.
*   **`find`**:
    *   Pros: Returns the actual filtered element (if found) or undefined if no match is found, which can be more informative than returning a boolean value. Suitable for use cases where you need to find the first matching element within the array.
    *   Cons: Requires iterating over the entire array until it finds a match, which can be slower for large arrays.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark, but some modern browsers and JavaScript engines might have additional features or built-in methods that could affect performance. For example:

*   **Arrow functions**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), arrow functions provide a concise syntax for defining small, single-purpose functions. They can be faster than traditional function expressions due to their reduced overhead.
*   **Let and const**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), let and const declarations allow you to define variables without the need for the `var` keyword, which can lead to better scoping and block-level hoisting.

**Special JavaScript Features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, some future versions of MeasureThat.net might include additional features like:

*   **Async/await**: A way to write asynchronous code that's more readable and easier to maintain.
*   **Template literals**: A feature for creating strings using template expressions, which can be faster than concatenation or string interpolation.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative microbenchmarks or tools for measuring JavaScript performance, consider the following options:

*   **BenchmarkDotNet**: An open-source benchmarking library that provides a more comprehensive set of features and tools for measuring JavaScript performance.
*   **jsPerf**: A built-in browser testing tool for measuring the performance of web pages and scripts.

Related benchmarks:

filter vs some vs includes vs find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs some vs includes vs find

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

some

includes

find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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