Benchmark: is find arrays cached (es5)

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000).fill().map(function(_, id) {
    return ({
        id: id,
        name: id + '_name',
    })
});
var data2 = Array(1000).fill().map(function(_, id) {
    return ({
        id: id,
        name: id + '_name',
    })
});

Tests:

single find
var found = data.find(function(item) { return item.id === 500 }); var result = { id: found.id, name: found.name, };
double same find
var result = { id: data.find(function(item) { return item.id === 500 }).id, name: data.find(function(item) { return item.id === 500 }).name, };
double different find
var result = { id: data.find(function(item) { return item.id === 500 }).id, name: data2.find(function(item) { return item.id === 500 }).name, };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
single find
double same find
double different find

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to accessing an element in an array: direct indexing, property access with `find()`, and property access with `find()` followed by object property access.

**Options Compared**

1. **Direct Indexing**: `data[500]`
	* Pros: Fastest and most straightforward approach.
	* Cons: May not work if the element is not found in the array, and it can be brittle if the index changes.
2. **Property Access with `find()`**: `data.find(item => item.id === 500).name`
	* Pros: More flexible than direct indexing, as it works even if the element's position in the array changes.
	* Cons: May be slower than direct indexing due to the overhead of searching for the element.
3. **Property Access with `find()` followed by Object Property Access**: `data.find(item => item.id === 500).name`
	* Pros: Similar flexibility as the previous approach, but avoids the potential overhead of `find()`.
	* Cons: May still be slower than direct indexing due to the extra step.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that the `find()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that uses the V8 JavaScript engine's search algorithm.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark, as it only involves basic array access and property manipulation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark generates large arrays (1000 elements) to test performance under stress.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` metric provides a measure of the benchmark's performance, with higher values indicating faster execution times.
* The results can help developers optimize their code for better performance in similar use cases.

**Alternatives and Variations**

Other approaches could be explored, such as:

1. Using `indexOf()` or `indexOf() + 1` to get the index of the element before accessing it directly.
2. Using a caching mechanism to store previously accessed elements, potentially improving performance for repeated accesses.
3. Using a different data structure, like a hash table or a linked list, which may provide better performance for certain use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional modifications to the benchmark code and may not necessarily improve performance in this specific case.

Related benchmarks:

is find arrays cached (es5) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: single find vs double same find vs double different find

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

single find

double same find

double different find

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):