Benchmark: silgjghjy - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0], farr;

Tests:

filter
farr = arr.filter(function(item) { return (item>4); } );
for
for (var i=0,len=arr.length;i<len;i++) { if (arr[i]<5) continue; farr.push(arr[i]); }
for 2
for (var i=0,len=arr.length;i<len;i++) { if (arr[i]>4) farr.push(arr[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
for
for 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.104 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	2724957.0 Ops/sec
for	366140.0 Ops/sec
for 2	366645.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the test cases and explain what's being tested, comparing options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. The benchmark definition includes:

1. **Name**: A unique identifier for the benchmark.
2. **Description**: A brief description of the benchmark (in this case, an empty string).
3. **Script Preparation Code**: A snippet of code that prepares the script for execution.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: An empty field, indicating no HTML preparation is needed.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **filter**
```javascript
farr = arr.filter(function(item) { return (item>4); });
```
This test case uses the `Array.prototype.filter()` method to create a new array (`farr`) containing only elements from the original array (`arr`) that are greater than 4.

2. **for**
```javascript
for (var i=0,len=arr.length;i<len;i++) {
  if (arr[i]<5) continue;
  farr.push(arr[i]);
}
```
This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the elements of the array (`arr`). If an element is less than 5, it skips to the next iteration. Otherwise, it adds the element to the new array (`farr`) using `push()`.

3. **for 2**
```javascript
for (var i=0,len=arr.length;i<len;i++) {
  if (arr[i]>4) farr.push(arr[i]);
}
```
This test case is similar to the previous one, but with a slight modification: instead of checking `if (arr[i]<5)` , it checks `if (arr[i]>4)`. This means that elements greater than 4 will be added to the new array (`farr`), while elements less than or equal to 4 will be skipped.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases compare different approaches to filtering an array:

* **filter()**: Uses the `Array.prototype.filter()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript method that creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.
* **for loop with conditional statement**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with a conditional statement (`if (arr[i]<5) continue;`) to skip iterations.
* **for loop without conditional statement**: Uses a similar `for` loop, but omits the conditional statement. Instead, it simply adds elements greater than 4 to the new array (`farr`).

**Pros and Cons**

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

* **filter()**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, concise, and easy to read.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the creation of a new array.
* **for loop with conditional statement**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster since it avoids creating a new array.
	+ Cons: More verbose and may require more memory allocations.
* **for loop without conditional statement**:
	+ Pros: Similar performance to the `filter()` method, but with less overhead.
	+ Cons: Requires careful handling of edge cases (e.g., what happens when an element is equal to 5).

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If speed is critical, the `for` loop without a conditional statement might be a better choice. However, if readability and conciseness are more important, `filter()` is often the better option.
* Memory usage: Creating a new array using `filter()` can result in higher memory usage. In this case, the `for` loops with or without a conditional statement might be more suitable.

**Alternative Approaches**

There are other ways to filter an array in JavaScript, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.every()`, which creates a new array containing only elements that satisfy the test function.
* Using `Array.prototype.some()`, which returns a boolean indicating whether at least one element satisfies the test function.
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `filter()` method with additional options and optimizations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to the original approaches.

Related benchmarks:

silgjghjy (version: 0)

fghfghfghfgh

Comparing performance of: filter vs for vs for 2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

for

for 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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