Benchmark: array exercise - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

case 1
const items = [3, -1, -2, 100, -2, -2, -1, 0, 100, 0, 3, 5, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7]; const result = []; items.forEach(num => { while (result.includes(num)) num++; result.push(num); });
case 2
const result = []; const items = [3, -1, -2, 100, -2, -2, -1, 0, 100, 0, 3, 5, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7]; let last = null; items .sort((a, b) => a - b) .forEach(item => { const shouldIncrement = (last !== null && item <= last) const uniqueNumber = (last = shouldIncrement ? last + 1 : item); result.push(uniqueNumber); }, 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
case 1
case 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.82 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
case 1	192026.5 Ops/sec
case 2	417240.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases: "array exercise". The key elements to note are:

* `Name`: A descriptive name for the benchmark.
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that no description is available.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Empty strings, suggesting that no preparation code is needed.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Case 1**
```javascript
const items = [3, -1, -2, 100, -2, -2, -1, 0, 100, 0, 3, 5, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7];
const result = [];
items.forEach(num => {
  while (result.includes(num)) num++;
  result.push(num);
});
```
This test case uses a simple `forEach` loop to iterate over an array of numbers. The loop increments the current number if it's already present in the `result` array, and then pushes the updated number into the `result` array.

**Case 2**
```javascript
const result = [];
const items = [3, -1, -2, 100, -2, -2, -1, 0, 100, 0, 3, 5, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7];
let last = null;

items
  .sort((a, b) => a - b)
  .forEach(item => {
    const shouldIncrement = (last !== null && item <= last);
    const uniqueNumber = (last = shouldIncrement ? last + 1 : item);

result.push(uniqueNumber);
  }, 0);
```
This test case uses the `sort` method to sort the array in ascending order, and then iterates over the sorted array using a similar logic as Case 1. The main difference is that it uses the `last` variable to keep track of the previous number, and increments or updates it accordingly.

**Library**

There are no explicit libraries mentioned in these test cases. However, the `Array.prototype.forEach` method is used in both cases, which is a built-in method in JavaScript.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

Neither test case uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that's not widely available. Both use standard `forEach` loops and basic arithmetic operations.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Both test cases aim to solve the same problem: generating an array of unique numbers from a given input array. The main difference lies in the approach:

* **Case 1**: Uses a simple `while` loop inside `forEach`, which might be less efficient due to the overhead of repeated checks.
* **Case 2**: Uses the `sort` method and a single `forEach` loop with conditional updates, which is likely more efficient due to the sorting step.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Case 1**:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: May be less efficient due to repeated checks in the `while` loop.
* **Case 2**:
	+ Pros: More efficient due to the use of `sort`, which reduces the number of iterations.
	+ Cons: Requires sorting the array, which might have a higher overhead for large inputs.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a more efficient data structure like a set or a hash table to keep track of unique numbers.
* Using a custom algorithm that avoids the need for sorting and looping altogether.
* Comparing performance with other languages, such as C++ or Java, which might have better built-in optimization tools.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and implementation.

Related benchmarks:

array exercise (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: case 1 vs case 2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

case 1

case 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):