Benchmark: for vs find in 20

Script Preparation code:

function genRandomString(length) {
   var chars = 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789!@#$%^&*()';
   var charLength = chars.length;
   var result = '';
   for ( var i = 0; i < length; i++ ) {
      result += chars.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * charLength));
   }
   return result;
}

Tests:

for
let dict = {} let exp = 'nice' for (let i=0;i<20;i++){ dict[genRandomString(20)]='test'; } dict[exp] = 'what'; function findsmthg() { for (const t in Object.keys(dict)) { if(t.toLowerCase() === exp.toLowerCase()) { return true; } } return false; } findsmthg();
find
let dict = {} let exp = 'nice' for (let i=0;i<20;i++){ dict[genRandomString(20)]='test'; } dict[exp] = 'what'; function validate(val) { return val.toLowerCase() === exp.toLowerCase(); } function findsmthg() { return !!Object.keys(dict).find(validate); } findsmthg();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.5060.114 Safari/537.36 Edg/103.0.1264.62

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	2817.2 Ops/sec
find	3098.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: `for` loop and `find` method. The benchmark creates an object with 20 random keys and assigns a value to each key using the `genRandomString` function. Then, it attempts to find a specific key (`exp`) in the dictionary.

**Script Preparation Code**

The `genRandomString` function generates a random string of length 20 using a predefined character set. This function is used to create the random keys for the dictionary.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only focuses on JavaScript execution time and does not take into account other factors like DOM manipulation or rendering.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. **for**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the dictionary keys and checks if the specific key (`exp`) is present.
2. **find**: This test case uses the `find` method to search for the specific key in the dictionary.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

* `for`: Traditional loop iteration
* `find`: Array.prototype.find() method

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. `for` Loop:
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster due to direct access to array elements.
		+ Can be more efficient when working with large datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual index management, which can lead to errors.
		+ May not be as concise or readable.
2. `find` Method:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Reduces the risk of off-by-one errors (e.g., accessing an array out of bounds).
	* Cons:
		+ Typically slower due to the overhead of function calls.
		+ May not be as efficient when working with large datasets.

**Other Considerations:**

1. **Library Usage**: The benchmark uses the `Object.keys()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript API. No external libraries are required.
2. **Special JS Feature or Syntax**: None
3. **Device and Browser Variability**: The benchmark uses a Chrome browser on Windows Desktop, but it's essential to consider other devices and browsers when comparing results across different platforms.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could explore additional approaches, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.findIndex()` instead of `find`
* Implementing your own iteration logic (e.g., using a custom iterator or a recursive approach)
* Adding more complex data structures, like arrays with nested objects
* Considering edge cases, such as searching for keys with special characters or null values

Related benchmarks:

for vs find in 20 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs find

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

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):