Benchmark: Find in array - 003

Script Preparation code:

var size = 10000
var arr = []
for (let i = 0; i < size; i++) {
    arr.push(i)
}
var leSet = new Set(arr)
var research = 6578;

Tests:

For i++ (const size)
const a_size = arr.length; var index = -1; for (let y = 0; y < a_size; y++) { if (research === arr[y]) { index = y; break; } }
For i++ (.length)
var index = -1; for (let y = 0; y < arr.length; y++) { if (research === arr[y]) { index = y; break; } }
For ... in
var index = -1; for (const y in arr) { if (research === arr[y]) { index = y; break; } }
for ... of
var index = -1; for (const el of arr) { if (research === el) { index = el; break; } }
indexOf
var index = arr.indexOf(research)
findIndex
var index = arr.findIndex(e => e === research)
Includes
var found = arr.includes(research)
Some ?
var found = arr.some(e => e === research)
forEach
var index = -1; arr.forEach((el, y) => { if (research === el) { index = y; return; } })
set has
const found = leSet.has(research)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For i++ (const size)
For i++ (.length)
For ... in
for ... of
indexOf
findIndex
Includes
Some ?
forEach
set has

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.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provided is a JSON object that describes the test case. Here, we're testing various ways to find an element in an array. The script preparation code creates a large array with 10,000 elements and sets the value of one of them to 6578, which is the target value for our search.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares six different approaches to find the index of a specific element in an array:

1. **For i++ (const size)**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with incrementing indices.
2. **For i++ (.length)**: Similar to the previous one, but uses the length property of the array to iterate.
3. **For ... in**: Uses the `in` operator to iterate over the array's properties.
4. **forEach**: Iterates over the array using the `forEach` method with a callback function.
5. **findIndex**: Uses the `findIndex` method, which returns the index of the first element that satisfies the provided condition.
6. **Includes** and **Some ?**: Not directly related to finding an element by its index, but rather checking if an element exists in the array using `includes` and `some`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* **For i++ (const size)**: Pros - simple and efficient; Cons - can be slow for large arrays due to incrementing indices.
* **For i++ (.length)**: Similar pros and cons as the previous one, with an additional consideration that using `length` might incur a small overhead.
* **For ... in**: Pros - potentially faster than traditional loops since it doesn't require incrementing indices; Cons - uses property access, which can be slower for large arrays.
* **forEach**: Pros - concise and easy to read; Cons - might be slower due to the overhead of iterating over the array's elements.
* **findIndex**: Pros - efficient and concise; Cons - assumes the element exists in the array, so it will throw an error if not found.
* **Includes** and **Some ?**: These are not directly related to finding an element by its index. They're used for different purposes: `includes` checks if an element exists, while `some` checks if any elements satisfy a condition.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show the execution speed of each approach on Firefox 103. The fastest approaches are usually **findIndex**, which is designed to find an element in the array efficiently. However, this comes at the cost of assuming the element exists.

In summary, when searching for an element by its index in a large array, `findIndex` is likely to be the best choice due to its efficiency and conciseness.

Related benchmarks:

Find in array - 003 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For i++ (const size) vs For i++ (.length) vs For ... in vs for ... of vs indexOf vs findIndex vs Includes vs Some ? vs forEach vs set has

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

For i++ (const size)

For i++ (.length)

For ... in

for ... of

indexOf

findIndex

Includes

Some ?

forEach

set has

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):