Benchmark: filter vs find - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var divs = [];
for(var x=0; x<10; x++){
   var $page= $('<div class="page page-'+x+'">');
   for(var i=0;i<50;i++){
      var $line= $('<div class="line line-'+i+'">');
      for(var j=0; j<5; j++){
         var $item= $('<div class="item">');
         $line.append($item);
      }
      $page.append($line);
   }
   divs[divs.length] = $page[0];
}
$(document.body).append($(divs));

Tests:

Filter
var $line = $(document.body).children('.page').children('.line-'+50);
Find
var $line = $(document.body).find('.line-'+50);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter
Find

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 provided JSON represents a benchmark for comparing two approaches to retrieve an element from a DOM tree: filtering and finding.

In this benchmark, 10 pages with 50 lines each are created dynamically using jQuery. The `divs` array stores references to the top-level div elements of these pages.

Two test cases are defined:

1. "Filter" uses the `filter()` method to find an element with a specific class.
2. "Find" uses the `find()` method to find an element with a specific class.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches compared in this benchmark are:

* `filter()`: This method creates a new array-like object containing all elements that match the provided condition.
* `find()`: This method returns the first element matching the selector, or `null` if no matches are found.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `filter()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids traversing the DOM tree.
		- Allows for easy extension to multiple selectors using the `Array.prototype.filter.call()` method.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates a new array-like object, which can lead to increased memory usage.
		- May not be suitable for small datasets or cases where exact matching is required.
* `find()`: 
	+ Pros:
		- Returns the first match directly, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
		- Can be more intuitive for simple selectors, like class names or IDs.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient as `filter()` for large datasets due to DOM traversal.

**Library: jQuery**

The benchmark uses jQuery (version 1.12) to create the DOM elements and manage the document body.

In this context, jQuery's `find()` method is used to search for an element with a specific class by traversing the DOM tree from the document body.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net might be optimized for certain browsers and versions of jQuery, which could affect the results.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, consider using alternatives like:

* Vanilla JavaScript methods: `Array.prototype.filter()` or `Array.prototype.findIndex()`
* Other libraries or frameworks with DOM traversal capabilities (e.g., React's `useSelector` hook)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the results or require significant modifications to the existing implementation.

When working on benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Browser and version support
* Performance characteristics of different algorithms and data structures
* Memory allocation and garbage collection overhead

Related benchmarks:

filter vs find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter vs Find

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter

Find

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):