Benchmark: Border test 2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strArr = [
    "x1y0",
    "x1y1",
    "x2y0",
    "x3y1",
    "x1y3",
    "x1y4",
    "x3y3",
    "x2y4"
]

var objArr = [{
        x: 1,
        y: 1
    },
    {
        x: 2,
        y: 0
    },
    {
        x: 3,
        y: 1
    },
    {
        x: 1,
        y: 3
    },
    {
        x: 1,
        y: 4
    },
    {
        x: 3,
        y: 3
    },
    {
        x: 2,
        y: 4
    }
]

Tests:

indexOf
strArr.forEach(str => { const index = strArr.indexOf(str) })
find
objArr.forEach(pos => { const index = objArr.find(p => { return (pos.x === p.x && pos.y === p.y) }) })
findIndex
objArr.forEach(pos => { const index = objArr.findIndex(p => { return (pos.x === p.x && pos.y === p.y) }) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
find
findIndex

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.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JavaScript code snippet that defines two arrays: `strArr` and `objArr`. `strArr` contains strings with "x" and "y" coordinates, while `objArr` contains objects with `x` and `y` properties.

**Script Preparation Code**

This section prepares the `strArr` array by defining it in a string format. The code uses newline characters (`\r\n`) to create a multi-line string.

**Html Preparation Code**

This section is empty, which means no HTML preparation code is required for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **indexOf**
The test case iterates over `strArr` using `forEach` and checks if each string exists in the array using `indexOf`. The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of finding an element in a string array.
2. **find**
The test case iterates over `objArr` using `forEach` and finds an object that matches a given position (`pos`) by checking if its `x` and `y` properties match with any existing object's `x` and `y` properties using `find`. The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of finding an element in an object array.
3. **findIndex**
The test case is similar to the previous one, but instead of using `find`, it uses `findIndex` to find the index of a matching element. The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of finding the index of an element in an object array.

**Library Usage**

There are no explicitly mentioned libraries used in these benchmark definitions. However, it's likely that the `forEach` method and the `indexOf`, `find`, and `findIndex` methods are part of the built-in JavaScript API or a polyfill library.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The test cases use the following special JS features:

* **Async iteration**: The `forEach` method is used for asynchronous iteration, which means that the code inside the callback function is executed in parallel.
* **Method chaining**: Some of the methods (e.g., `indexOf`, `find`) return values that are then passed as arguments to other methods.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **indexOf**
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward approach for finding an element in a string array.
	* Cons: May be slower than using `findIndex` or a more efficient algorithm.
2. **find**
	* Pros: More flexible approach for finding an object that matches a given position, as it can handle any object type.
	* Cons: May be slower than using `indexOf` or `findIndex`, especially if the array is large and the comparison function is complex.
3. **findIndex**
	* Pros: Similar to `find`, but returns the index of the matching element instead of the entire object, which can make it more efficient in some cases.
	* Cons: May still be slower than using a more optimized algorithm or data structure.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered for this benchmark include:

* Using a different data structure, such as a hash table or a trie, to store the strings and objects.
* Implementing a custom search algorithm that takes advantage of specific characteristics of the data (e.g., string matching).
* Using parallel processing techniques, such as multi-threading or concurrent programming, to improve performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

Border test 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs find vs findIndex

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

find

findIndex

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):