Benchmark: .map.includes vs .filter

Tests:

.map.includes
const array = []; for(let i = 0; i <= 10000;i++){ array[i] = {test:`my-${10000-i}`}; } const arrayIds = array.map(el=>el.test); for(let i = 0; i <= 10000;i++){ arrayIds.includes(`my-${10000-i}`); }
.filter
const array = []; for(let i = 0; i <= 10000;i++){ array[i] = {test:`my-${10000-i}`}; } for(let i = 0; i <= 10000;i++){ array.find(el=>el.test===`my-${10000-i}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.map.includes
.filter

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if an element exists in an array: `.map.includes` and `.filter`.

In both test cases, a large array of objects is created, where each object has a `test` property. The arrays are populated with 10,000 elements using a `for` loop.

For the first test case (`".map.includes"`), the benchmark uses the `map()` method to create a new array with the results of the expression `el.test`, and then calls the `.includes()` method on this new array to check if a specific value exists.

In contrast, the second test case (`".filter"`), the benchmark uses the `find()` method to directly find the first element that matches the specified condition in the original array.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`.map.includes`**: This approach creates a new array with transformed elements and then checks if an element exists in this new array using `.includes()`.
2. **`.filter`**: This approach directly searches for the first matching element in the original array using `find()`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`.map.includes`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster if the resulting array is small compared to the original array.
		+ May be more efficient for large arrays, since it avoids creating a new array with all elements.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates an additional copy of the data using `map()`.
		+ May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating and manipulating the intermediate array.
2. **`.filter`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code, as it directly searches for the element in the original array.
		+ Avoids creating an additional copy of the data.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for large arrays, since `find()` has to iterate over each element until it finds a match.

**Library: `Array.prototype.includes` and `Array.prototype.find`**

These methods are built-in JavaScript functions that allow you to search for elements in an array. They are widely supported across modern browsers and environments.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None mentioned**

In this benchmark, no special JavaScript features or syntaxes (e.g., async/await, promises) are used. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare these approaches with other methods, consider:

1. **`.every()`**: Instead of using `.includes()`, you could use `.every()` to check if all elements in the array satisfy a condition.
2. **`.some()`**: Alternatively, you could use `.some()` to find at least one element that satisfies a condition.

However, these alternatives may not provide a direct comparison with the original approach, as they would be used in different contexts (e.g., checking for every element vs. finding at least one element).

Related benchmarks:

.map.includes vs .filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .map.includes vs .filter

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.map.includes

.filter

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):