Benchmark: find vs loop - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

find
var test = [{id: 1, name: 'test1', enabled: false}, {id: 2, name: 'test2', enabled: false}, {id: 3, name: 'test3', enabled: false}, {id: 4, name: 'test4', enabled: false}, {id: 5, name: 'test5', enabled: false}, {id: 6, name: 'test6', enabled: false}, {id: 7, name: 'test7', enabled: false}, {id: 8, name: 'test8', enabled: false}, {id: 9, name: 'test9', enabled: false}, {id: 10, name: 'test10', enabled: true}]; var enabled = test.find(t => t.enabled);
loop
var test = [{id: 1, name: 'test1', enabled: false}, {id: 2, name: 'test2', enabled: false}, {id: 3, name: 'test3', enabled: false}, {id: 4, name: 'test4', enabled: false}, {id: 5, name: 'test5', enabled: false}, {id: 6, name: 'test6', enabled: false}, {id: 7, name: 'test7', enabled: false}, {id: 8, name: 'test8', enabled: false}, {id: 9, name: 'test9', enabled: false}, {id: 10, name: 'test10', enabled: true}]; var enabled = false; for(var i = 0; i < test.length; ++i) { if(test[i].enabled) { enabled = true; break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
loop

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 definitions and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a simple benchmark definition with two properties:

*   `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark ("find vs loop").
*   `Description`: An empty string indicating that there is no description.
*   `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Both are empty strings, suggesting that no additional code needs to be executed before running the benchmarks.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1.  **Test Case 1: "find"**
    *   The benchmark definition uses the `Array.prototype.find()` method, which returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, `t.enabled === true`).
    *   The code starts by defining an array (`test`) containing 10 elements. Six of these elements have `enabled` set to `false`, while one has it set to `true`.
    *   It then uses `Array.prototype.find()` to find the first element in the array where `enabled` is true.
2.  **Test Case 2: "loop"**
    *   The benchmark definition uses a traditional loop-based approach, iterating over the array (`test`) and checking each element's `enabled` property.
    *   Similar to Test Case 1, the code defines an array (`test`) with 10 elements. However, this time it manually iterates through the array using a `for` loop.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Find() Method**
    *   Pros:
        *   More concise and expressive.
        *   Likely to be faster due to its optimized implementation.
    *   Cons:
        *   May not work correctly if the array is empty or contains only non-enumerable properties.
*   **Traditional Loop-Based Approach**
    *   Pros:
        *   Clearer and more familiar for developers who are comfortable with manual iteration.
        *   Works correctly even in unusual cases (e.g., empty arrays).
    *   Cons:
        *   Less concise and expressive than the `find()` method.
        *   May be slower due to additional overhead from manual iteration.

**Other Considerations**

In terms of performance, both approaches are generally equivalent in modern JavaScript engines like V8. However, there may be some minor differences due to various optimizations and caching mechanisms used by the engine.

If you're concerned about readability or maintainability, consider using libraries like `lodash` which provide utility functions for common data processing tasks, including array iteration and filtering. In this case, `_.find()` would be a more readable alternative to `Array.prototype.find()`.

**Special JavaScript Feature**

The provided benchmark definition uses the `let` keyword to declare variables (`var test = []`), but it also uses ES6 features like template literals (e.g., `"var enabled = test.find(t => t.enabled);"`). These features are widely supported in modern browsers and Node.js environments.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions explicitly use any external libraries. However, if you were to modify the code to include a library for array manipulation or filtering, some popular options include:

*   Lodash (as mentioned earlier)
*   Ramda
*   Underscore.js

These libraries provide various utility functions that can simplify your data processing tasks and improve readability.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to the provided benchmarking approach could be:

1.  **Use a Testing Framework**: Consider using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha to write and run tests for JavaScript code.
2.  **Write Performance Tests with Benchmark.js**: Use the Benchmark library (which powers MeasureThat.net) to create and compare performance benchmarks.
3.  **Implement Your Own Benchmarking Functionality**: If you need more control over your benchmarking approach, consider implementing your own function using a framework like Webpack's `bench` module or a custom implementation with a timer-based approach.

By understanding the different approaches and their pros and cons, you can better optimize and compare performance benchmarks for your JavaScript code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/72.0.3626.119 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 72 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	9960717.0 Ops/sec
loop	9729264.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

find vs loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs loop

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

loop

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):