Benchmark: .map.includes vs .filter with shuffle

Script Preparation code:

  var numberOfData = 1e3
    data = [];
    for (let i = 0; i <= numberOfData; i++) {
      data[i] = { test: `my-${numberOfData - i}` };
    }

Tests:

.map.includes
let arrayIds = data.map((el) => el.test); for (let i = 0; i <= numberOfData; i++) { arrayIds = _.shuffle(arrayIds); arrayIds.includes(`my-${numberOfData - i}`); }
.filter
for (let i = 0; i <= numberOfData; i++) { data = _.shuffle(data); data.find((el) => el.test === `my-${numberOfData - 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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches: using `Array.prototype.includes()` with the `.map()` method, and using `Array.prototype.find()` with the `.filter()` method. The test data consists of an array of objects with a `test` property, which contains a unique string value for each object.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **.map.includes**: This approach uses the `map()` method to create a new array containing only the `test` values from the original data, and then uses the `.includes()` method to search for a specific value in the resulting array.
2. **.filter**: This approach uses the `filter()` method to create a new array containing only the objects that match the condition (in this case, having a `test` property equal to a specific string value).

**Pros and Cons**

1. `.map.includes`:
	* Pros: Can be more concise and readable for simple use cases.
	* Cons: Creates an intermediate array with duplicate values, which can lead to unnecessary memory allocation and copying.
2. `.filter`:
	* Pros: More flexible and efficient for larger datasets, as it only iterates over the data once.
	* Cons: Can be less readable due to its more complex syntax.

**Library Used**

The `_` library is used in both benchmark definitions. `_` is a shorthand notation for various libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide utility functions for common tasks such as shuffling arrays (`_.shuffle()`).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a relatively small dataset (`1e3` elements), which may not accurately represent performance in larger datasets.
* The `for` loop and indexing are used in both approaches, which can be optimized using more modern iteration methods (e.g., `forEach()`).

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to compare the performance of these two approaches might include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.includes()` with a custom filtering function (e.g., `Array.prototype.includes() === Array.prototype.find().map(x => x)`).
2. Using a more efficient data structure, such as a Set or a Map, to store and search the data.
3. Using parallel processing or multi-threading techniques to leverage multiple CPU cores.

Keep in mind that the specific approach and alternatives will depend on the requirements of the project and the desired outcome.

Related benchmarks:

.map.includes vs .filter with shuffle (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):