Benchmark: arr.find vs arr[arr.findIndex] (Array prototype methods)

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;

Tests:

Array.prototype.find
const item = arr.find(item => item == 1E5);
Array.prototype.findIndex
const index = arr[arr.findIndex(item => item == 1E5)];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.find
Array.prototype.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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript array methods: `arr.find()` and `arr[arr.findIndex()]`. The test case uses an empty array `arr` that is populated with values from 0 to 100,000 using a while loop.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Array.prototype.find()**: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, `item == 1E5`). If no such element exists, it returns `undefined`.
2. **Array.prototype.findIndex()**: This method returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, `item == 1E5`). If no such element exists, it returns -1.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Array.prototype.find():**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive code
		- Easier to read and maintain, especially for simple conditions
	+ Cons:
		- May be less efficient than `arr.findIndex()` due to the overhead of creating a closure
		- Returns `undefined` if no element matches, which may require additional checks in some cases
* **Array.prototype.findIndex():**
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient than `find()`, as it avoids creating a closure and returns an index instead of a value
	+ Cons:
		- Less concise and expressive code compared to `find()`
		- Requires more explicit checks to handle the case where no element matches

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 117 as the browser, which may affect the results due to differences in JavaScript engine optimization or caching.
* The test runs on a desktop platform, which may have different performance characteristics compared to mobile or web platforms.
* The array size is relatively small (100,000 elements), which may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where arrays are much larger.

**Library and Syntax**

In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used. However, the `find()` and `indexOf()` methods are built-in JavaScript methods that work on all modern browsers.

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The only thing being compared is the performance of two different array methods.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to find elements in an array, here are a few options:

* **for loop**: You can use a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and check each element against the condition.
* **forEach()**: The `forEach()` method is similar to `find()`, but it returns no value instead of returning the matched element. You can use it if you're only interested in the index or side effects, rather than a specific value.
* **Array.prototype.some()**: This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array satisfies the condition, and `false` otherwise. It's similar to `find()`, but more concise.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

arr.find vs arr[arr.findIndex] (Array prototype methods) (version: 0)

Measuring which is faster

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.find vs Array.prototype.findIndex

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.find

Array.prototype.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):