Benchmark: indexOf vs $.inArray

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-3.3.1.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array_list = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
	array_list[i] = i;
}

Tests:

indexOf first
array_list.indexOf(0);
$.inArray first
jQuery.inArray(0, array_list);
indexOf last
array_list.indexOf(999);
$.inArray last
jQuery.inArray(999, array_list);
indexOf middle
array_list.indexOf(499);
$.inArray middle
jQuery.inArray(499, array_list);
indexOf
array_list.indexOf(0); array_list.indexOf(499); array_list.indexOf(999);
$.inArray
jQuery.inArray(0, array_list); jQuery.inArray(499, array_list); jQuery.inArray(999, array_list);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf first
$.inArray first
indexOf last
$.inArray last
indexOf middle
$.inArray middle
indexOf
$.inArray

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf first	137560672.0 Ops/sec
$.inArray first	82845920.0 Ops/sec
indexOf last	10877027.0 Ops/sec
$.inArray last	10176893.0 Ops/sec
indexOf middle	18709436.0 Ops/sec
$.inArray middle	17043540.0 Ops/sec
indexOf	7007450.5 Ops/sec
$.inArray	6421716.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance of finding an element within an array using two different methods: JavaScript's built-in `indexOf()` method and jQuery's `inArray()` function.

Here's a breakdown:

**Options Compared:**

1. **`indexOf()`:** A native JavaScript method that searches for the first occurrence of a given value within an array and returns its index (position). If the value is not found, it returns -1.
2. **`jQuery.inArray()`:** A function provided by the jQuery library that performs a similar search to `indexOf()`, but adds some additional features like the ability to handle arrays of objects.

**Pros/Cons:**

* **`indexOf()`:** 
    * **Pros:**  Built-in, performant, widely supported across browsers.
    * **Cons:** Basic functionality, doesn't offer advanced features like jQuery's `inArray()`.
* **`jQuery.inArray()`:**
    * **Pros:** More flexible (can work with arrays of objects), potentially optimized by jQuery for common use cases.
    * **Cons:** Relies on an external library (jQuery), adds overhead if not already included in the project.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Test Cases:**  The benchmark includes various test scenarios: finding elements at the beginning, middle, and end of the array, as well as multiple searches within a single iteration. This helps to evaluate performance under different conditions.
* **Library Impact:** 
    Since `jQuery.inArray()` is part of jQuery, it's essential to consider if the overhead introduced by including jQuery for this specific operation outweighs its potential benefits in other parts of the application.

**Key Takeaways:**

In this benchmark, `indexOf()` generally performs better than `inArray()`. However, the best choice depends on your specific needs and project context. If you need basic array searching and performance is critical, `indexOf()` is likely sufficient. If you require more flexibility or jQuery's features are already integrated into your project, `inArray()` might be a suitable option.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs $.inArray (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf first vs $.inArray first vs indexOf last vs $.inArray last vs indexOf middle vs $.inArray middle vs indexOf vs $.inArray

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf first

$.inArray first

indexOf last

$.inArray last

indexOf middle

$.inArray middle

indexOf

$.inArray

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):