Benchmark: Forloop vs indexOf

Script Preparation code:

var wikiEntry = 'Boogeyman 2 is a 2007 American supernatural horror film edited and directed by Jeff Betancourt and the sequel to the 2005 film Boogeyman. The film was written by Brian Sieve and stars Danielle Savre, Matt Cohen, Tobin Bell and Renee OConnor. Savre portrays Laura Porter, a woman who witnessed her parents murder alongside her brother as a child. She believes the killer to be the Boogeyman, and now as an adult seeks group therapy to overcome her phobia of the creature. However, her fears become reality as her fellow patients are murdered one by one. Due to the previous films financial success, Boogeyman 2 was announced in October 2006. Production of the film began in the same month with the hiring of Betancourt as director and Sieve attached as writer. Casting began in December of the same year with the hiring of OConnor; Savre got the lead role in January 2007. Filming took place in Los Angeles at the former hospital, Linda Vista Community Hospital, over a four-month period, beginning in January 2007 and concluding in April. Unlike the original film, which featured the Boogeyman as a supernatural entity, Betancourt strove to present a more grounded and realistic version of the mythical creature. Additionally, emphasis was placed on the writing and atmosphere to compensate for the films small $4.5 million budget. After screening at the Screamfest Horror Film Festival on October 20, 2007, Boogeyman 2 was released direct-to-video in the United States on January 8, 2008; it was later released theatrically in Russia and Italy. It received mixed reviews from critics, although many of them considered it to be a general improvement over its predecessor. Attention was especially given to the human-like nature of the Boogeyman in the film, which reviewers felt was preferable to monsters in other contemporary creature features, including the previous film. Despite a mediocre commercial performance, recouping slightly less than its budget, the film received a sequel, Boogeyman 3, the following year';
var testArray = wikiEntry.split(' ');
var searchTerm = 'contemporary';

Tests:

For loop
for( var i = 0, len = testArray.length; i < len; i++) { if (testArray[i] === searchTerm) { return true; } } return false;
IndexOf
return testArray.indexOf(searchTerm) > -1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For loop
IndexOf

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 benchmark and explore what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript methods for searching an array: `for` loop with an `indexOf()` method and the latter itself. The test case uses a string array `testArray` containing a search term "contemporary".

**Options Compared**

1. **For Loop**: A traditional `for` loop is used to iterate over the elements of the `testArray` and check if any match the search term.
2. **IndexOf() Method**: The built-in `indexOf()` method is used to find the index of the first occurrence of the search term in the array.

**Pros and Cons**

**For Loop:**

Pros:

* Explicit iteration control and iteration logic can be customized.
* Potential for better cache performance, as variables are scoped within the loop.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to overheads associated with manual iteration (e.g., accessing array elements).
* May require additional checks for edge cases (e.g., array bounds).

**IndexOf() Method:**

Pros:

* Faster and more efficient, as it leverages optimized algorithms implemented in the browser.
* Reduces memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.

Cons:

* Less control over iteration logic.
* May not work correctly if the search term is not found (returns -1 instead of false).

**Other Considerations**

* **Caching**: The `for` loop approach might have an advantage in terms of caching, as variables are scoped within the loop. However, this can be mitigated by using techniques like block-scoping or memoization.
* **Browser Behavior**: Different browsers may exhibit varying performance characteristics for each method. Chrome 64 is reported to execute both tests at different speeds.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `indexOf()` method is a built-in JavaScript function, and the `for` loop relies on basic array iteration syntax.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets.

To perform similar benchmarks for alternative methods, consider exploring other search algorithms, such as:

* **Binary Search**: A more efficient approach that takes advantage of a sorted array.
* **Sliced Array Iteration**: Using slicing to reduce the iteration set size or leveraging native `forEach()` method optimization.

Related benchmarks:

Forloop vs indexOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For loop vs IndexOf

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For loop

IndexOf

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):