Benchmark: FindIndex + splice vs filter FindIndex

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(15000);
arr.fill({ id: 0 });
arr = arr.map((el, idx) => el.id = idx);
var foo = Math.floor(Math.random() * 15000);

Tests:

FindIndex + splice
var index = arr.indexOf(foo);
filter
var index = arr.filter(el => el !== foo)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
FindIndex + splice
filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
FindIndex + splice	776693.9 Ops/sec
filter	11827.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The test compares the performance of two approaches: `FindIndex + splice` and `filter FindIndex`. The goal is to find the index of an element (`foo`) within a large array (`arr`). The two methods are compared in terms of execution time.

**Options being compared:**

1. **FindIndex + splice**: This approach uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of `foo` and then uses `splice()` to remove the element at that index.
2. **filter FindIndex**: This approach uses a filter function (`el => el !== foo`) inside the `Array.prototype.filter()` method, which returns an array with all elements that do not match the condition.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **FindIndex + splice**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient if the element is found at a specific index.
	* Cons: Requires two operations (index lookup and splicing), which can lead to slower performance for large arrays.
2. **filter FindIndex**:
	* Pros: More concise and potentially faster since it uses a single operation (filtering).
	* Cons: May be less efficient if the element is not found in the array, as the filter function will create an empty array.

**Library and syntax considerations:**

There are no external libraries mentioned in the test case. However, it's worth noting that `Array.prototype.indexOf()` and `Array.prototype.splice()` are built-in methods, so they don't require any additional imports or setup.

**Special JavaScript features:**

None of the tested approaches use special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers. The test appears to be a simple benchmarking exercise focused on comparing the performance of two array manipulation techniques.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were looking for alternative methods to find an index in an array, some other options might include:

1. Using `map()` and checking the result against the length of the array.
2. Using a binary search algorithm (e.g., [Binary Search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search_algorithm)).
3. Using a more modern approach with `findIndex()` and `Array.prototype.some()`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement or compare against the original test, but they could potentially offer better performance for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

FindIndex + splice vs filter FindIndex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: FindIndex + splice vs filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

FindIndex + splice

filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):