Benchmark: Every vs - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [3, -5, -1, 6, 12, -14];

var filter = x => x > 3 && x < 7;
var filters = [x => x > 3, x => x < 7];

Tests:

One
arr.reduce((v,c) => { if (filters.every(condition => condition(c))) { v.push(c); }; return v; }, [])
Two
arr.reduce((v,c) => { if (filter(c)) { v.push(c); }; return v; }, []);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
One
Two

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.131 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
One	419972.1 Ops/sec
Two	536399.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, where two different approaches are compared to filter an array of numbers and push only elements that fall within a specific range.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines the following variables:

* `arr`: an array of six numbers: `[3, -5, -1, 6, 12, -14]`.
* `filter`: a function `x => x > 3 && x < 7`, which checks if a number is greater than 3 and less than 7.
* `filters`: an array of two functions: `x => x > 3` and `x => x < 7`.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, so we'll focus on the JavaScript implementation.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **One**: This test case uses a single function literal `arr.reduce((v,c) => { ... })` to filter the array.
2. **Two**: This test case uses an array of functions `arr.reduce((v,c) => { ... }, [])` with each element being one of the two predefined filters.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. Using a single function literal for filtering (`Test Case: One`).
2. Using an array of functions for filtering (`Test Case: Two`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Single Function Literal (Test Case: One)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simpler and more readable code.
		+ Can be optimized by the JavaScript engine (e.g., inlining, caching).
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to function lookup and invocation.
2. **Array of Functions (Test Case: Two)**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for easier modification and extension of the filtering logic without changing the core loop.
		+ Can be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with array methods like `every()` and `filter()`.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to function lookup, invocation, and potential cache misses.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, the use of JavaScript's built-in array methods (`reduce()`, `every()`, and `filter()`) relies on the standard library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, making it relatively accessible to developers with varying levels of familiarity with JavaScript.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for filtering arrays include:

* Using `Array.prototype.filter()` directly (e.g., `arr.filter(filter)`).
* Implementing a custom filter function using bitwise operations or regular expressions.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which provide more expressive and flexible filtering functions.

Related benchmarks:

Every vs (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: One vs Two

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

One

Two

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):