Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
JS Some vs Includes
(version: 1)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
Some vs Includes
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var testArray = []; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { var n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100); testArray.push({ id: n, text: "hello" }); }
Tests:
Some
testArray.find(x => !testArray.some(y => y.id == 23));
Includes
var ids = testArray.map(x => x.id); testArray.find(x => !ids.includes(23));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Some
Includes
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.4.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Yandex Browser 24 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=528890" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Includes
9K/s
Some
2K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Includes
8,859 Ops/sec
Some
2,267 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks: 1. **`testArray.find(x => !testArray.some(y => y.id == 23))`**: This benchmark tests the performance of finding an element in an array using `find()` with a predicate function that uses `some()`. In this case, it's checking if there is no element with `id` equal to 23. 2. **`var ids = testArray.map(x => x.id); testArray.find(x => !ids.includes(23))`**: This benchmark tests the performance of finding an element in an array using `find()` after mapping the array to a new array containing only the `id`s. **Options Compared** The two approaches are compared: * **Using `some()` with a predicate function**: This approach uses a predicate function that checks for existence, but returns false as soon as it finds a match. It's an efficient way to check if no element meets a certain condition. * **Mapping the array and then using `includes()`**: This approach maps the array to a new array containing only the `id`s, and then uses `find()` with `includes()` to search for the target value. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Using `some()` with a predicate function**: * Pros: Efficient, simple implementation. * Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for complex conditions. 2. **Mapping the array and then using `includes()`**: * Pros: More readable and maintainable for complex conditions, avoids creating an intermediate array. * Cons: Creates a new array with the mapped values, which can increase memory usage. Other considerations: * The use of arrow functions (`=>`) is allowed in both benchmarks, as it's a modern JavaScript feature that provides concise syntax. * There are no special JS features or syntax used in these benchmarks beyond arrow functions and template literals (`\r\n`). **Alternatives** If you wanted to implement these benchmarks without using `find()` or `includes()`, here are some alternatives: 1. **Linear search**: Implement a linear search algorithm that iterates through the array until it finds the target value. 2. **Binary search**: If the array is sorted, use binary search to find the target value more efficiently. Keep in mind that these alternative approaches would likely be less efficient and less readable than using `find()` or `includes()`.
Related benchmarks
at(-1) vs (length - 1)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?