Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. findIndex

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
Array.filter
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
Array.findIndex
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.findIndex(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.findIndex(v => v === 0);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 368 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 302 runs

Array.some

236K/s

Array.findIndex

228K/s

Array.filter

49K/s

Fastest: Array.some (4.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.some: 236,318 ops/sec
• Array.findIndex: 227,683 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 48,639 ops/sec

Firefox 45 runs

Array.findIndex

31K/s

Array.some

30K/s

Array.filter

17K/s

Fastest: Array.findIndex (1.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.findIndex: 31,143 ops/sec
• Array.some: 30,177 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 16,693 ops/sec

Other 10 runs

Array.findIndex

225K/s

Array.some

201K/s

Array.filter

37K/s

Fastest: Array.findIndex (6.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.findIndex: 225,097 ops/sec
• Array.some: 200,679 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 37,496 ops/sec

Safari 5 runs

Array.findIndex

173K/s

Array.some

130K/s

Array.filter

78K/s

Fastest: Array.findIndex (2.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.findIndex: 172,619 ops/sec
• Array.some: 130,295 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 78,335 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Array.some

104K/s

Array.findIndex

59K/s

Array.filter

34K/s

Fastest: Array.some (3.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.some: 103,678 ops/sec
• Array.findIndex: 59,047 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 34,164 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.findIndex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Array.findIndex

408K/s

Array.some

402K/s

Array.filter

114K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.findIndex	407,678 Ops/sec
Array.some	402,255 Ops/sec
Array.filter	113,688 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test measures the performance of three different methods for filtering arrays with zero values: `Array.some()`, `Array.filter()`, and `Array.findIndex()`.

**Test Case Analysis**

Each test case consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code generates two large arrays, `hasZero` and `withoutZero`, each containing 10,000 random integers between 0 and 999. The script also declares a variable `tempResult` that will be used to store the results of the benchmark.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This part is empty in this example, but it's likely used to generate HTML elements or other UI-related code that's not relevant to the performance test.

**Benchmark Definitions**

The three benchmark definitions are:

1. **Array.some()**:
```javascript
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
```
This code uses the `some()` method to check if any element in the array is equal to 0. The `!!` operator converts the result to a boolean value.

2. **Array.filter()**:
```javascript
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
```
This code uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with only the elements that are equal to 0.

3. **Array.findIndex()**:
```javascript
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.findIndex(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.findIndex(v => v === 0);
```
This code uses the `findIndex()` method to find the index of the first element in the array that is equal to 0.

**Comparison of Methods**

The three methods differ in their approach:

* **Array.some()**: This method checks if any element in the array meets a condition. It's efficient for arrays with a small number of elements, but can be slower for large arrays.
* **Array.filter()**: This method creates a new array with only the elements that meet a condition. It's less efficient than `some()` because it requires creating a new array, but is faster than `some()` for large arrays.
* **Array.findIndex()**: This method returns the index of the first element that meets a condition. It's more efficient than `filter()` because it doesn't require creating a new array.

**Pros and Cons**

| Method | Pros | Cons |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Array.some() | Fast for small arrays, easy to use | Slow for large arrays, may not be suitable for filtering purposes |
| Array.filter() | Faster than `some()` for large arrays, creates a new array with filtered elements | Creates a new array, less efficient than `findIndex()` |
| Array.findIndex() | Efficient for finding the index of the first element that meets a condition, doesn't create a new array | May not be suitable for filtering purposes |

**Other Considerations**

* **Library usage**: None of the methods use any external libraries.
* **Special JS features**: None of the methods use any special JavaScript features like async/await or promises.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for filtering arrays with zero values include:

* `Array.map()`: Creates a new array with transformed elements, but can be slower than `filter()` for large arrays.
* `Array.reduce()`: Reduces an array to a single value using a callback function, but is not suitable for filtering purposes.
* Using a custom implementation of the filtering algorithm, which can be more efficient but also more complex and error-prone.

Some vs. Filter vs. findIndex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.findIndex`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.findIndex

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 368 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 302 runs

Firefox 45 runs

Other 10 runs

Safari 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Some vs. Filter vs. findIndex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.findIndex

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.findIndex

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 368 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 302 runs

Firefox 45 runs

Other 10 runs

Safari 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 6 runs

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: `Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.findIndex`