Benchmark: blahasdas - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i=0; i<100000; i++) {
  data.push([Math.floor(Math.random()*10)/10, Math.floor(Math.random()*10)/10, Math.floor(Math.random()*10)/10]);
}

Tests:

nested
var ret = {}; for (var i=0; i<data.length; i++) { var d = data[i]; ret[d[0]] = ret[d[0]] || {}; ret[d[0]][d[1]] = ret[d[0]][d[1]] || {}; ret[d[0]][d[1]][d[2]] = true; }
combined
var ret = {}; for (var i=0; i<data.length; i++) { var d = data[i]; ret[d[0]+","+d[1]+","+d[2]] = true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
nested
combined

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net, a platform that enables users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases: "nested" and "combined". A benchmark is a set of code that measures the performance of a specific piece of functionality. In this case, we have two test cases:

1. **Nested**: This test case creates an object `ret` and iterates over an array `data` containing 100,000 elements. For each element, it checks if the corresponding key exists in the `ret` object and, if not, creates a new nested object.
2. **Combined**: This test case is similar to the "nested" test case but uses a single string as the key instead of creating a nested object.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases differ in how they access and manipulate the `data` array:

1. **Nested**: Uses an iterative approach with three nested objects (`ret[d[0]][d[1]][d[2]] = true;`) to create the object hierarchy.
2. **Combined**: Uses a single string concatenation (`ret[d[0]+\",\"+d[1]+\",\"+d[2]] = true;`) to access and manipulate the `data` array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Nested**:
	+ Pros: More explicit control over object creation, potentially better cache locality.
	+ Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the need to create multiple objects, as well as more memory usage.
* **Combined**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution time, reduced memory usage, and potentially better cache locality due to the single string concatenation.
	+ Cons: Less explicit control over object creation, may lead to issues with string manipulation and key collisions.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, there is no explicit library or framework mentioned. However, some assumptions can be made:

* The `data` array is likely a JavaScript built-in data structure (e.g., an array).
* The `ret` object is also a JavaScript object.
* No external libraries are used to create the object hierarchy.

**Special JS Features and Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. However, some notable mentions include:

* **Object literals**: Used to create objects like `var ret = {}`.
* **Array iteration**: Used to iterate over the `data` array using a `for` loop.
* **String concatenation**: Used in both test cases for string manipulation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to optimize or modify these benchmarking test cases, here are some potential alternatives:

1. Use a more efficient data structure, such as a Map or an Object with sparse properties.
2. Utilize JavaScript's built-in caching mechanisms (e.g., `WeakMap`) for better object creation performance.
3. Experiment with different iteration approaches, like using `for...of` loops or recursion.
4. Consider parallelizing the benchmarking process to take advantage of multi-core processors.

Keep in mind that any modifications should be thoroughly tested to ensure they do not introduce unintended performance regressions or other issues.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2987.98 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 57 on Mac OS X 10.9.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
nested	4.3 Ops/sec
combined	8.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

blahasdas (version: 0)

blah

Comparing performance of: nested vs combined

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

nested

combined

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):