Benchmark: find() vs for...of vs for-loop moooore data

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='test'></div>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
	arr.push(i);
}

Tests:

for-loop
let val; for(i=0; i<arr.length; i++){ var value = arr[i]; if (value === 98) { val = value; break; } }
for..of
let val; for (var value of arr) { if (value === 98) { val = value; break; } }
Array.find()
let val = arr.find(node => node.id === 98);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for-loop
for..of
Array.find()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three approaches for finding an element in an array:

1. **For-loop**: A traditional iterative approach using `for` loops to iterate through each element of the array.
2. **For...of**: A modern, concise way of iterating through arrays using the `for...of` loop syntax.
3. **Array.find()**: A built-in method for finding an element in an array that returns the first matching element or `undefined`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these three approaches because they have different performance characteristics and use cases.

* **For-loop** is a general-purpose, low-level approach that can be used in any situation.
* **For...of** is a more modern, JavaScript-specific approach that's designed for iterating through arrays and other iterable collections.
* **Array.find()** is a built-in method specifically designed for finding elements in an array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **For-loop**:
	* Pros: Highly customizable, works with any data type, not dependent on array structure.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of manual iteration.
2. **For...of**:
	* Pros: Concise, readable, and efficient for iterating through arrays.
	* Cons: Limited flexibility, may not work with all types of data structures.
3. **Array.find()**:
	* Pros: Efficient, concise, and easy to use for finding a single element in an array.
	* Cons: May not work with very large arrays due to the overhead of searching, can be slower than manual iteration.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there are no libraries used. However, some test cases do use special JavaScript features:

1. **For...of**: Uses the `for...of` loop syntax, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.
2. **Array.find()**: Uses the built-in `find()` method, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

1. **Performance**: If you need to iterate through large arrays or perform complex searches, manual iteration (for-loop) might be slower than using optimized methods like Array.find().
2. **Readability and Maintainability**: For...of is often more readable and maintainable than for-loop due to its concise syntax.
3. **Flexibility**: For-loop is the most versatile approach, as it can work with any data type and structure.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Using other built-in methods**: Instead of Array.find(), you could use other array methods like Array.includes() or Array.reduce().
2. **Using a library**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might find libraries like Lodash or Ramda useful for iterating through arrays and performing complex searches.
3. **Manual iteration with other data structures**: If you need to iterate through other data structures (e.g., linked lists), you might consider using manual iteration instead of optimized array methods.

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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for-loop	84292.8 Ops/sec
for..of	4559854.0 Ops/sec
Array.find()	114.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

find() vs for...of vs for-loop moooore data (version: 0)

Testing the difference between native loops and find()

Comparing performance of: for-loop vs for..of vs Array.find()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for-loop

for..of

Array.find()

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):