Benchmark: find vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus']

Tests:

find
array.find(f => f == 'banana' );
includes
array.includes('banana');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	25438440.0 Ops/sec
includes	23946134.0 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 explain the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript methods: `array.find()` and `array.includes()`. The test creates an array with three strings, including "banana", and then checks if each string is equal to "banana" using both methods.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. `array.find(f => f == 'banana')`: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, equality with "banana"). If no such element exists, it returns `undefined`.
2. `array.includes('banana')`: This method checks if the array contains the specified value ("banana") and returns a boolean result indicating whether it does or not.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. `array.find()`:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient for large arrays, as it stops iterating as soon as it finds the match.
	* Cons: Returns `undefined` if no match is found, which might not be desirable in some cases. Also, it's a method call, so there's an overhead associated with invoking a function.
2. `array.includes()`: 
	* Pros: Always returns a boolean result (true or false), making it easier to handle the outcome.
	* Cons: Requires iterating over the entire array, which can be slower for large arrays.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, some browsers might use internal libraries or optimizations that affect the performance of these methods. For example, Chrome's `includes()` method uses a binary search algorithm internally to improve performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is simple and straightforward.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare other array methods, consider the following alternatives:

* `array.indexOf()`: Similar to `includes()`, but returns the index of the first occurrence instead of a boolean result.
* `array.slice().indexOf()` or `array.filter()`: These approaches can be used to implement custom array search methods, but might incur additional overhead due to method call and iteration.

In summary, this benchmark compares two common JavaScript array methods: `find()` and `includes()`. While `find()` has some advantages in terms of efficiency for large arrays, it returns `undefined` if no match is found. On the other hand, `includes()` always returns a boolean result but requires iterating over the entire array.

Related benchmarks:

find vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs includes

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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