Benchmark: JS Filter Test large array

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.29/angular.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.2/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script>
  _lodash = _.noConflict();
</script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var angularFilter = angular.injector(['ng']).get('$filter')('filter');

// Generate test array
window.array = (function() {
  var arr = [];
  for (var i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
    arr.push(i);
  }

  return arr;
}());

Array.prototype.find = function(predicate) {
  if (this == null) {
    throw new TypeError('Array.prototype.find called on null or undefined');
  }
  if (typeof predicate !== 'function') {
    throw new TypeError('predicate must be a function');
  }
  var list = Object(this);
  var length = list.length >>> 0;
  var thisArg = arguments[1];
  var value;

  for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    value = list[i];
    if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, i, list)) {
      return value;
    }
  }
  return undefined;
};

function getValue(el) {
	return el - 50 > 31;
}

Tests:

array.find
array.find(getValue);
array.filter
array.filter(getValue);
lodash.filter
_lodash.filter(array, getValue);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 20 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 20 runs

array.filter

1.2M/s

array.find

1.1M/s

lodash.filter

1.1M/s

View exact numbers

✓ array.filter: 1,162,225 ops/sec
• array.find: 1,136,888 ops/sec
• lodash.filter: 1,064,814 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.find
array.filter
lodash.filter

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/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

array.filter

7.4M/s

array.find

1.8M/s

lodash.filter

1.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ array.filter	7,449,522 Ops/sec
array.find	1,825,833 Ops/sec
lodash.filter	1,363,323 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript functions can be a complex task, as it depends on various factors such as browser, device platform, operating system, and hardware capabilities.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two microbenchmarks: `array.find` and `array.filter`. Both benchmarks test the execution speed of the `getValue` function, which is applied to an array using these methods.

1. **Array.prototype.find**: This method searches for the first element in the array that satisfies a given condition (in this case, `getValue`). If no such element is found, it returns undefined.
2. **Array.prototype.filter**: This method creates a new array containing only the elements of the original array that satisfy a given condition (also using `getValue`).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three approaches:

1. **Native Array.prototype.find**: This method is implemented in JavaScript and is available in most modern browsers.
2. **Native Array.prototype.filter**: Similar to find, this method is also implemented in JavaScript and is available in most modern browsers.
3. **_lodash.filter** (using Lodash): This is a popular external library that provides an implementation of the `filter` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Native Array.prototype.find**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it's implemented in JavaScript.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for all edge cases or in older browsers.
2. **Native Array.prototype.filter**:
	* Pros: Similar to find, fast and efficient, but may have some differences in implementation details.
	* Cons: Also may not work correctly for all edge cases or in older browsers.
3. **_lodash.filter** (using Lodash):
	* Pros: Widely supported, reliable, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Requires an additional library to be loaded, which can impact performance.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a relatively small array of 100 elements, which might not be representative of real-world scenarios where arrays can be much larger.
* The `getValue` function is a simple predicate that subtracts 50 from each element and checks if the result is greater than 31. This might not be a realistic use case for most developers.
* The benchmark does not account for other factors that can affect performance, such as memory allocation, garbage collection, or concurrent execution.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to implement `filter` or `find`, consider the following:

* Using a library like `Array.prototype.map` and then filtering the resulting array.
* Implementing your own custom implementation using bitwise operations or loops.
* Using a functional programming approach with libraries like RxJS or Promisefilter.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or reliable as the native methods provided by modern browsers.

JS Filter Test large array (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `array.find vs array.filter vs lodash.filter`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

array.find

array.filter

lodash.filter

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 20 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 20 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JS Filter Test large array (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: array.find vs array.filter vs lodash.filter

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

array.find

array.filter

lodash.filter

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 20 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 20 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.find vs array.filter vs lodash.filter`