Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find - Correct version

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = hasZero.some(v => v === 0);
Array.filter
var tempResult = hasZero.filter(v => v === 0);
Array.indexOf
var tempResult = hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
Array.includes
var tempResult = hasZero.includes(0);
Array.find
var tempResult = hasZero.find(v => v === 0);
Array.findLast
var tempResult = hasZero.findLast(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.includes
Array.find
Array.findLast

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares six different ways to check if an element exists in an array: `some()`, `filter()`, `indexOf()`, `includes()`, `find()`, and `findLast()`.

In this specific case, the arrays are populated with random integers between 0 and 1000 using the `hasZero` variable.

**Options being compared**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. **Array.some(v => v === 0)**: This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array is equal to 0.
2. **Array.filter(v => v === 0)**: This method returns an array containing only the elements that are equal to 0.
3. **Array.indexOf(0) > -1**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of 0 in the array, or -1 if it's not found.
4. **Array.includes(0)**: This method returns `true` if the array contains 0 at least once.
5. **Array.find(v => v === 0)**: This method returns the first element in the array that is equal to 0.
6. **Array.findLast(v => v === 0)**: This method returns the last element in the array that is equal to 0.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **some()**: Pros - simple, fast. Cons - can return `true` even if only one element matches.
2. **filter()**: Pros - returns an array with matching elements. Cons - creates a new array, can be slower than `some()` or `includes()`.
3. **indexOf()**: Pros - returns the index of the first match. Cons - can be slow for large arrays, and may not work as expected if the array is not sorted.
4. **includes()**: Pros - simple, fast, and returns a boolean value. Cons - can return `true` even if only one element matches.
5. **find()**: Pros - returns the first matching element. Cons - can be slower than `some()` or `includes()`.
6. **findLast()**: Pros - returns the last matching element. Cons - can be slower than `some()` or `includes()`.

**Library and syntax**

No libraries are used in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional features or optimizations that could affect performance.

**Special JavaScript feature**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features beyond the standard array methods.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to check if an element exists in an array, you might consider:

1. Using a `Set` object, which has a faster `has()` method.
2. Using a custom loop with a counter variable.
3. Using a third-party library like Lodash.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of different ways to check if an element exists in an array, highlighting both pros and cons of each approach. By understanding these differences, you can make informed decisions about which method to use in your own JavaScript applications.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/119.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	368627.5 Ops/sec
Array.filter	41466.3 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1454866.9 Ops/sec
Array.includes	1481494.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	376073.9 Ops/sec
Array.findLast	253058.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find - Correct version (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs Array.find vs Array.findLast

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Array.find

Array.findLast

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):