Benchmark: indexOf vs $.inArray

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-3.3.1.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array_list = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
	array_list[i] = i;
}

Tests:

indexOf first
array_list.indexOf(0);
$.inArray first
jQuery.inArray(0, array_list);
indexOf last
array_list.indexOf(999);
$.inArray last
jQuery.inArray(999, array_list);
indexOf middle
array_list.indexOf(499);
$.inArray middle
jQuery.inArray(499, array_list);
indexOf
array_list.indexOf(0); array_list.indexOf(499); array_list.indexOf(999);
$.inArray
jQuery.inArray(0, array_list); jQuery.inArray(499, array_list); jQuery.inArray(999, array_list);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf first
$.inArray first
indexOf last
$.inArray last
indexOf middle
$.inArray middle
indexOf
$.inArray

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided JSON data and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a comparison between two different methods of finding an element in an array: `indexOf` and `$.inArray`.

**Test Cases**

There are eight test cases, each representing a different scenario:

1. **indexOf first**: `array_list.indexOf(0);`
	* This test case uses the `indexOf` method to find the index of the first element (0) in an array.
2. **$ .inArray first**: `jQuery.inArray(0, array_list);`
	* This test case uses the `$.inArray` method from jQuery to find the index of the first element (0) in an array.
3. **indexOf last**: `array_list.indexOf(999);`
	* Similar to the previous one, but finding the index of the last element (999).
4. **$ .inArray last**: `jQuery.inArray(999, array_list);`
5. **indexOf middle**: `array_list.indexOf(499);`
6. **$ .inArray middle**: `jQuery.inArray(499, array_list);`
7. **indexOf multiple calls**: `array_list.indexOf(0);\narray_list.indexOf(499);\narray_list.indexOf(999);`
	* This test case uses the `indexOf` method to find the index of three elements in an array.
8. **$ .inArray multiple calls**: `jQuery.inArray(0, array_list);\njQuery.inArray(499, array_list);\njQuery.inArray(999, array_list);`

**Library: jQuery**

The test cases use jQuery's `$.inArray` method to find elements in an array. jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a lot of useful functions for DOM manipulation, event handling, and more.

**JS Features or Syntax Used**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two methods:

1. **indexOf**: The built-in array method in JavaScript.
2. **$.inArray**: A method from jQuery to find elements in an array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **indexOf**:
	* Pros: Built-in, efficient, and widely supported by browsers.
	* Cons: None notable in this context.
2. **$.inArray**:
	* Pros: Part of a popular library (jQuery), which can be beneficial if you're already using jQuery for other tasks.
	* Cons: Additional overhead from loading the jQuery library.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark results suggest that `indexOf` is consistently faster than `$.inArray`. This might be due to the additional overhead of loading jQuery and its methods. However, this conclusion depends on your specific use case and the context in which you're using these methods.

If you need to find elements in an array frequently, using the built-in `indexOf` method would likely provide better performance. If you're already using jQuery for other reasons, it's not necessarily a bad idea to stick with `$.inArray`. However, if you're concerned about performance and don't need any of jQuery's other features, `indexOf` is a clear winner in this benchmark.

**Additional Notes**

* The benchmark results show that the performance gap between `indexOf` and `$.inArray` widens as the number of elements increases.
* If you're working with very large arrays or complex data structures, consider using optimized algorithms or libraries specifically designed for such use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.1.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 24 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf first	17294164.0 Ops/sec
$.inArray first	5478915.5 Ops/sec
indexOf last	17406976.0 Ops/sec
$.inArray last	3158972.2 Ops/sec
indexOf middle	17316862.0 Ops/sec
$.inArray middle	3923695.8 Ops/sec
indexOf	6268153.5 Ops/sec
$.inArray	1352224.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs $.inArray (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf first vs $.inArray first vs indexOf last vs $.inArray last vs indexOf middle vs $.inArray middle vs indexOf vs $.inArray

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf first

$.inArray first

indexOf last

$.inArray last

indexOf middle

$.inArray middle

indexOf

$.inArray

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 27 days ago):