Benchmark: 1312312 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
	arr.push(i);
}

function forLoop(array, item) {
	for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
    	if (array[i] === item) {
          return i;
        }
    }
    return -1;
}

function whileLoop(array, item) {
  	var i = 0;
	while (i < array.length) {
    	if (array[i] === item) {
        	return i;
        }
      	i += 1;
    }
    return -1;
}

function index(array, item) {
	return array.indexOf(item);
}

function sort(array, item) {
	let arr2 = arr.sort();
	return arr2[0];
}

Tests:

431
index(arr, 101)
123
sort(arr, 101)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
431
123

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

431

11.5M/s

123

1.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ 431	11,468,794 Ops/sec
123	1,013,625 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches for finding an item in an array: `for` loop, `while` loop, and built-in `indexOf()` function (which is likely implemented using a more efficient algorithm under the hood). The benchmark compares these approaches on a sample array of 100 elements.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines two benchmark tests:

1. **Test 1: "1312312"**
	* This test creates an array `arr` and populates it with numbers from 0 to 99 using a `for` loop.
	* It then defines three functions:
		+ `forLoop(array, item)`: uses a traditional `for` loop to search for the specified `item` in the array.
		+ `whileLoop(array, item)`: uses a `while` loop to search for the specified `item` in the array.
		+ `index(array, item)`: calls the built-in `indexOf()` function on the array.
	* The test prepares the array and runs each of the three functions multiple times (not explicitly specified, but implied by the use of `ExecutionsPerSecond` metric).
2. **Test 2: "431"** and **"123"**
	* These tests are identical to Test 1, but with different names.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches:

1. **for Loop**: uses a traditional `for` loop to search for the item in the array.
2. **while Loop**: uses a `while` loop to search for the item in the array.
3. **indexOf()**: uses the built-in `indexOf()` function, which is likely implemented using a more efficient algorithm under the hood.

**Pros and Cons**

* **for Loop**:
	+ Pros: simple to implement and understand.
	+ Cons: can be slow for large arrays due to the loop overhead.
* **while Loop**:
	+ Pros: similar performance characteristics to `for` loop, but with potentially less overhead due to less branching.
	+ Cons: may not be as efficient as `indexOf()` due to the need for manual array iteration.
* **indexOf()**:
	+ Pros: likely implemented using a more efficient algorithm under the hood, making it generally faster than manual loops.
	+ Cons: relies on the browser's implementation of `indexOf()`, which may vary between browsers.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses no libraries beyond what is built into JavaScript. There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to find an item in an array could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.find()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2015)
* Implementing a binary search algorithm
* Using a library like Lodash's `indexOf` function

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the `for`, `while`, and `indexOf()` approaches used in this benchmark.

1312312 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `431 vs 123`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

431

123

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

1312312 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 431 vs 123

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

431

123

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `431 vs 123`