Benchmark: [test] for vs find

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var max = 1000;
var valueToFind = 500;
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
	arr[i] = Math.floor(Math.random()*max);     
}

Tests:

find
arr.find(item => item === valueToFind);
for
const len=arr.length; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { if (arr[i]===valueToFind) { break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for finding an element in an array:

1. `arr.find(item => item === valueToFind)`: This approach uses the built-in `find` method, which returns the first element that satisfies the provided condition.
2. `for` loop with a conditional break: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and find the desired element by checking each element's equality with `valueToFind`.

**Options Compared:**
The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Using the built-in `find` method**: This approach is implemented using a single line of code, making it concise and expressive.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with conditional break**: This approach involves more code, but can be useful for situations where no built-in methods are available or desired.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Using the built-in `find` method:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable
		- Built-in method is optimized for performance
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as familiar to all developers, especially those without experience with modern JavaScript features
		- Requires at least a modern browser or environment that supports the `find` method
* Traditional `for` loop with conditional break:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported across different browsers and environments
		- Allows for fine-grained control over iteration and conditionals
	+ Cons:
		- More code, making it less concise and potentially more error-prone
		- May not be as efficient as the `find` method due to its iterative nature

**Library Usage:**
In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, some modern browsers' `find` method implementation relies on external libraries or frameworks for performance optimization.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax:**
There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark beyond the built-in `find` method and traditional `for` loop constructs.

Now, let's consider alternative approaches to finding an element in an array:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.indexOf()`**: This approach uses the `indexOf` method instead of `find`. It has a similar performance profile to `find` but may not be as concise.
2. **Using a library like Lodash or Ramda**: These libraries provide various utility functions for working with arrays, including finding elements. They can add additional complexity and overhead compared to using built-in methods.
3. **Implementing a custom binary search algorithm**: This approach involves dividing the array into smaller sections and searching for the element using a binary search strategy. It can be more efficient than traditional `for` loops but may require more code and understanding of algorithms.

These alternative approaches offer varying trade-offs between conciseness, performance, and control over iteration.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/73.0.3683.86 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 73 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	13294.8 Ops/sec
for	7046.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

[test] for vs find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs for

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):