Benchmark: Qqqqqq - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var as = [];
var as2 = [];
(function () {
  function A() {
    this.x = Math.random();
  }
  A.prototype.y = function (){};
  A.prototype.z = function (){};
  for (var i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
    var a = new A();
    as.push(a);
    if (a.x < 0.5) {
      as2.push(a);
    }
  }
})();

Tests:

1
function f1 (run) { for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { if (run && as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1) { as[i].y(); } else { as[i].z(); } } as = run ? as2 : as; }; f1(false); f1(true);
2
function f2 (run) { if (run) { for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { if (as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1) { as[i].y(); } } as = as2; } for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { as[i].z(); } }; f2(false); f2(true);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a JavaScript function `f1` (or `f2`) that contains two test cases. The function takes an optional argument `run`. The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the execution performance of two different approaches:

1. **Approach 1**: In the first approach, the loop iterates over the array `as`, and for each element, it calls either method `y()` or `z()`, depending on the value of `run` and whether the element's `x` property is less than 0.5.
2. **Approach 2**: In the second approach, a separate loop iterates over the array `as`, calling only method `z()` for each element.

**Options being compared**

The two approaches differ in their performance:

* **Approach 1**:
	+ Pros: Reduces overhead by using a single loop.
	+ Cons: May lead to slower execution if elements with `x < 0.5` are more frequent, as it needs to perform the conditional check inside the loop.
* **Approach 2**:
	+ Pros: Avoids the conditional check and can be faster for arrays with few or no elements that satisfy the condition.
	+ Cons: Increases overhead due to the separate loop.

Other considerations:

* The `as` array is populated with 10,000 objects of type `A`, each with a unique `x` property. This array size and distribution are likely designed to test performance under heavy loads.
* The `run` parameter allows for flexibility in testing different scenarios, such as enabling or disabling one approach based on the desired outcome.

**Library usage**

In both test cases, the benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript functions:

* `Array.prototype.indexOf()`: Finds the index of an element with a specific value (in this case, `as2.indexOf(as[1])`).
* `Array.prototype.push()`: Adds elements to the end of an array.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require expertise beyond basic JavaScript knowledge.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches could be explored:

* Using a library like [BenchmarkJS](https://github.com/benmosher/benchmarkjs) to compare performance.
* Implementing caching mechanisms, if applicable, to optimize execution times.
* Optimizing the data structure or array manipulation techniques used in the benchmark.
* Profiling the JavaScript engine and its optimization strategies.

Please note that this is a general analysis of the provided benchmark. Depending on specific use cases, optimizations may vary, and alternative approaches might be more suitable.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS i686 0.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/47.0.2526.73 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 47 on Chrome OS 0.0.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	230.6 Ops/sec
2	200.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Qqqqqq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 7 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 26 days ago):