Benchmark: Array.find vs Array.filter on large dataset

Script Preparation code:

var total = [];
var ids = [10000, 14000, 19999];
for (var i = 0; i < 20000; i++) {
  total.push({id: i, value: Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)});
}

Tests:

Filter
total.filter((item) => ids.includes(item.id));
Find with default
ids.map((id) => total.find((item) => item.id === id)).filter((item) => !!item) ?? []
Find without default
ids.map((id) => total.find((item) => item.id === id))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter
Find with default
Find without default

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/107.0.0.0 (Edition Yx GX)

Browser/OS: Opera 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter	885.4 Ops/sec
Find with default	28988.6 Ops/sec
Find without default	29012.7 Ops/sec

Array.find vs Array.filter on large dataset (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter vs Find with default vs Find without default

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter

Find with default

Find without default

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A