Benchmark: Find vs Filter - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.1/ramda.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var files = [".env", ".example.env", "index.js"]

Tests:

Filter
const files_test = files.filter((file) => { if (file.startsWith('.env')) { return true } return false })
FInd
const files_test = files.find((file) => file.startsWith('.env') )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter
FInd

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter	18856966.0 Ops/sec
FInd	45457316.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches to filtering an array of file names: using the `filter()` method and using the `find()` method. The test case uses a library called Ramda, which is a functional programming library for JavaScript.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Filter()**: This approach uses the `filter()` method, which creates a new array with all elements that pass a test provided as a function.
2. **Find()**: This approach uses the `find()` method, which returns the first element in an array that satisfies a testing function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Filter()**:
	+ Pros: Efficient for large arrays (it only checks each element once), easy to understand, and widely supported by modern browsers.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array with all elements that pass the test, which can be memory-intensive for very large arrays.
* **Find()**:
	+ Pros: More efficient than `filter()` when there is only one matching element (it doesn't need to create an entire new array).
	+ Cons: Returns the first matching element, so if there are multiple matches, only one will be returned. Also, it may not be as easy to understand for those familiar with imperative programming.

**Library and purpose**

The Ramda library is a functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions (functions that take other functions as arguments) to manipulate arrays and objects in a declarative way. In this benchmark, the `filter()` and `find()` methods are used from Ramda to create a test case.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided examples.

**Other alternatives**

For those familiar with imperative programming, other approaches could be:

* Using a loop (e.g., `for` loop) to iterate through each element of the array.
* Using a regular expression to match file names that start with `.env`.
* Using an array comprehension or map-reduce pattern to filter and find elements.

However, these alternatives are generally less efficient and more prone to errors compared to using the built-in `filter()` and `find()` methods from Ramda.

Related benchmarks:

Find vs Filter (version: 0)

Test Find Vs Filter javascript

Comparing performance of: Filter vs FInd

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter

FInd

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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