Benchmark: TEST SWAP FUNC - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

SWAP1
function test1() { let arr=[0,1]; arr[0]+=arr[1]; arr[1]=arr[0]-arr[1]; arr[0]-=arr[1]; }
SWAP2
function test2() { let arr=[0,1], dum; dum=arr[0]; arr[0]=arr[1]; arr[1]=dum; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
SWAP1
SWAP2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 8.0.0; ASUS_X00RD) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.110 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 70 on Android 8.0.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
SWAP1	111348584.0 Ops/sec
SWAP2	114519976.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, `SWAP1` and `SWAP2`, which are microbenchmarks that measure the performance of swapping elements in an array. The benchmark compares the execution time of two different approaches to swap elements: using a temporary variable (`dum`) and directly updating the array indices.

**Options compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **SWAP1**: Uses a temporary variable (`dum`) to swap elements.
2. **SWAP2**: Directly updates the array indices without using a temporary variable.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**SWAP1 (using `dum`):**

Pros:

* More intuitive and readable code
* Easier to understand and maintain

Cons:

* Requires an additional variable, which can lead to performance overhead due to memory allocation and garbage collection
* May require more CPU cycles due to the extra operation

**SWAP2 (directly updating indices):**

Pros:

* Faster execution time due to fewer operations
* Less memory allocated and garbage collected

Cons:

* Code can be less readable and more prone to errors due to the lack of explicit swapping
* May be more challenging to understand and maintain for developers who are not familiar with this approach

**Other considerations:**

* Both approaches have similar performance characteristics, with SWAP1 being slightly slower than SWAP2.
* The choice between these two approaches may depend on the specific use case, personal preference, or coding style guidelines.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided benchmark cases explicitly uses any libraries. However, it's essential to note that in a real-world scenario, you might be using libraries like `Array.prototype.swap` (which is not supported in older browsers) or `lodash`'s `swap` function.

**Special JavaScript features/syntax:**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 modules, async/await, or destructuring. The code is straightforward and easy to understand for developers familiar with traditional JavaScript.

Now, let's discuss alternative approaches:

* **Using `Array.prototype.swap`**: If you're targeting modern browsers that support this method, it can be a more concise and efficient way to swap elements.
* **Using a library like Lodash**: As mentioned earlier, Lodash provides an implementation of the `swap` function, which can simplify the swapping process and improve readability.
* **Using a different data structure**: Depending on the specific use case, you might consider using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a circular buffer, to reduce memory allocations and swaps.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be relevant to this particular benchmark, which focuses on swapping elements in an array.

Related benchmarks:

TEST SWAP FUNC (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: SWAP1 vs SWAP2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

SWAP1

SWAP2

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):