Benchmark: JS Find vs FindIndex

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Find
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.find(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.find(v => v === 0);
FindIndex
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.findIndex(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.findIndex(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Find
FindIndex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares the performance of using `find` vs `findIndex` in JavaScript to locate an element within an array.

**Here's a breakdown:**

* **What is tested?**  The benchmark measures how quickly each method can find the value '0' within two arrays:
    * `hasZero`: This array contains random numbers between 0 and 999, potentially including '0'.
    * `withoutZero`: This array contains random numbers between 1 and 999.

**Options compared:**

1. **`find()`**: Returns the *first* element in an array that satisfies a given condition (in this case, finding the value '0').
2. **`findIndex()`**: Returns the *index* of the first element in an array that satisfies a given condition.

**Pros and Cons:**

*  **`find()`**:
    * **Pro:**  Returns the actual element you're looking for, making it convenient if you need to work with that element directly.
    * **Con:**  Can be slightly slower than `findIndex()` because it needs to return the full element object.
* **`findIndex()`**:
    * **Pro:** More efficient as it only returns the index, requiring less processing.
    * **Con:** Doesn't give you the actual element itself; you'd need to use that index to access the element in the array later.

**Other Considerations:**

* In this specific benchmark, both `find()` and `findIndex()` are very close in performance because the target value ('0') is relatively easy to find.
* For larger arrays or more complex search conditions, the difference in performance between `find()` and `findIndex()` might become more noticeable.

**Alternatives:**

* **Traditional `for` loop:** While often slower than `find()` and `findIndex()`, it offers fine-grained control over the iteration process.
* **Libraries like Lodash:** Provide optimized versions of `find()` and `findIndex()`.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/127.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Find	267201.5 Ops/sec
FindIndex	266458.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS Find vs FindIndex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Find vs FindIndex

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Find

FindIndex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one month ago):