Benchmark: (find + indexOf) vs (findIndex + direct access)

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;

Tests:

find + indexOf
const res = arr.find(item => item === 1E5); const index = arr.indexOf(res);
findIndex + direct access
const index = arr.findIndex(item => item === 1E5); const res = arr[index];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find + indexOf
findIndex + direct access

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that compare the performance of different approaches to find an element in an array.

**Approaches being compared:**

1. **find + indexOf**: This approach uses the `find` method to search for a specific value in the array, and then uses the `indexOf` method to get the index of the found element.
2. **findIndex + direct access**: This approach uses the `findIndex` method to search for a specific value in the array and return its index directly.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **find + indexOf**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more readable and easier to understand, as it separates the search logic from the indexing logic.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the extra method call, which can lead to slower performance.
2. **findIndex + direct access**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can potentially be faster, as it eliminates the need for an extra method call and returns the index directly.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more care when using this approach, as it's easy to forget that `findIndex` can return -1 if no element is found.

**Library usage:**

The benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript `Array.prototype.find`, `Array.prototype.indexOf`, and `Array.prototype.findIndex` methods. These methods are part of the ECMAScript standard and do not require any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are none mentioned in this particular benchmark. However, some special features that might be relevant to similar benchmarks include:

* **async/await**: If the benchmark were using async functions, it would be interesting to see how performance compares between `find` + `indexOf`, `findIndex` + direct access, and an equivalent approach using async/await.
* **Promises**: Similar to async/await, if the benchmark were using Promises instead of async functions, it would be worth exploring how performance differs.

**Other alternatives:**

Some alternative approaches that could be explored in a similar benchmark include:

1. **Using a custom binary search algorithm**: This approach would require iterating over the array from both ends and meeting in the middle at each step.
2. **Implementing a hash table or dictionary**: If the array is expected to have a large number of unique elements, implementing a hash table or dictionary could potentially offer better performance for finding specific elements.
3. **Using a caching approach**: Caching the results of previous searches could potentially improve performance by avoiding redundant calculations.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between two common approaches to finding an element in an array. By examining the results and discussing the pros and cons of each approach, it's possible to make informed decisions about which method is best suited for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

(find + indexOf) vs (findIndex + direct access) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find + indexOf vs findIndex + direct access

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find + indexOf

findIndex + direct access

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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