Benchmark: testjhj - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
function findSingle(arr) { let singleOccurence = null; arr.forEach((item) => { let count = arr.filter(i => i === item).length; if (count === 1) { singleOccurence = item; } }); return singleOccurence; } const arr = [10, 2, 2 , 1, 0, 0, 10]; findSingle(arr);
2
function findSingle(arr) { let singleOccurence = null; for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { let count = arr.filter(el => el === arr[i]).length; if (count === 1) { singleOccurence = arr[i]; break; } } return singleOccurence; } const arr = [10, 2, 2 , 1, 0, 0, 10]; findSingle(arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
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 10.15; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	1484072.2 Ops/sec
2	1498782.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for testing JavaScript functions. A benchmark is a measure of the execution time or performance of a specific piece of code. In this case, the benchmark tests two different implementations of finding a single occurrence in an array.

**Script Preparation Code vs. Html Preparation Code**

In the benchmark definition, both `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields are empty. This means that the script itself is being executed directly without any additional setup or preparation code. In other words, the script is assumed to be self-contained and does not require any external setup or initialization.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases differ in their implementation:

1. **Test Case 1**: Uses a `forEach` loop with `filter()` method inside it.
2. **Test Case 2**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with `filter()` method inside it.

These options are compared to determine which one performs better in terms of execution time.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Test Case 1 (forEach)**:
	* Pros: More concise, easier to read, and maintainable.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the use of `forEach()` and `filter()`.
2. **Test Case 2 (for loop)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster for large arrays since it avoids the overhead of `forEach()` and `filter()`.
	* Cons: More verbose, harder to read, and maintainable.

**Library Used**

In both test cases, the `Array.prototype.filter()` method is used. The `filter()` method returns a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function. In this case, it's used to count the occurrences of each element in the array.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither of the test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. They are written in standard JavaScript and use only built-in methods and operators.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare different approaches to finding a single occurrence in an array, here are some alternative options:

1. **Using `indexOf()` method**: Instead of using `forEach()` and `filter()`, you can use the `indexOf()` method to find the index of the first occurrence of the element.
2. **Using a hash table or map**: You can create a hash table or map to store the elements of the array as keys, which allows for constant-time lookup and thus potentially faster execution.
3. **Using SIMD instructions**: If you're targeting modern browsers that support SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions, you can use them to perform operations on multiple elements simultaneously.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs depending on the specific requirements of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

testjhj (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

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):