I measured the execution times of those two functions:
The execution of following methods have been measured using Chrome Profiles tool:
// jQuery GREP function
function alternative1(words, wordToTest) {
return $.grep(words, function(word) {
return wordToTest.indexOf(word) != -1;
});
}
// Native javascript FILTER function
function alternative2(words, wordToTest) {
return words.filter(function(word) {
return wordToTest.indexOf(word) != -1;
});
}
Array of words
was constructed of 1 million randomly generated strings. Each method was run 20 times. On my surprise jQuery
grep function was faster.
Execution times (20 executions):
You can repeate measurings on this jsFidle - it will take some time to execute so be patient.
Is there any explanation why jQuery grep function is faster then native JavaScript filter function?
PS: This questions was inspired by this answer.
By comparing the actual jQuery function $.grep
uses on the page
function (a, b, c) {
var d = [],
e;
c = !! c;
for (var f = 0, g = a.length; f < g; f++) e = !! b(a[f], f), c !== e && d.push(a[f]);
return d
}
(check here for non-minified, thanks Alexander) against the algorithm specified for
It looks to me like .filter
forces its this
to Object, checks the callback IsCallable
and sets this
in it as well as checking for existence of property in each iteration, whereas .grep
assumes and skips these steps, meaning there is slightly less going on.
Combine this with how good the JavaScript compiler in Chrome is and you might find the speed difference.
Adding some of these into $.grep
would make it look like
function (elems, callback, inv, thisArg) {
var ret = [],
retVal;
inv = !!inv;
for (var i = 0, length = elems.length; i < length; i++) {
if (i in elems) { // check existance
retVal = !!callback.call(thisArg, elems[i], i); // set callback this
if (inv !== retVal) {
ret.push(elems[i]);
}
}
}
return ret;
}
and take about the same time as .filter
(modified Alexander's jsperf).