Benchmark: Test perfomance - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = Array(1000).fill().map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 100));
var arr2 = Array(1000).fill().map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 100));

AخA
 
var arr1 = Array(1000).fill().map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 100));var arr2 = Array(1000).fill().map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 100));

Tests:

Test reduce

const fn = (arr1, arr2) => {
  return arr2.reduce((acc, item) => {
    if (arr1.includes(item) && !acc.includes(item)) {
      acc.push(item);
    }

    return acc;
  }, []);
};

fn(arr1, arr2)

​x
 
const fn = (arr1, arr2) => {  return arr2.reduce((acc, item) => {    if (arr1.includes(item) && !acc.includes(item)) {      acc.push(item);    }​    return acc;  }, []);};​fn(arr1, arr2)

Test 2

const fn = (arr1, arr2) => {
  return Array.from(new Set(arr2.filter((item) => arr1.includes(item))));
};

fn(arr1, arr2)

 
const fn = (arr1, arr2) => {  return Array.from(new Set(arr2.filter((item) => arr1.includes(item))));};​fn(arr1, arr2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Test reduce
Test 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test reduce	7845.7 Ops/sec
Test 2	8703.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze the provided benchmark definition.

Benchmark Definition

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring performance in JavaScript. The benchmark consists of two test cases:

Test reduce: This test case measures the performance of a function that uses the reduce method to filter an array based on whether each element is present in another array.
Test 2: This test case measures the performance of a function that uses the Set data structure and the filter method to achieve similar filtering, but with a different approach.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares two approaches:

Using reduce: The first test case (Test reduce) uses the reduce method to filter the array.
Using Set and filter: The second test case (Test 2) uses a Set data structure and the filter method.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Using reduce:
- Pros: Easy to implement, concise code.
- Cons: Can be less efficient for large datasets due to the overhead of the reduce method.
Using Set and filter:
- Pros: Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of the reduce method.
- Cons: Requires creating a new data structure (the Set), which can lead to higher memory usage.

Library Used

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of the Array.from() method is specific to modern JavaScript versions, and its implementation may vary depending on the browser or engine used.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

The benchmark uses a feature common in modern JavaScript: Template Literals (\r\n), which allows for easier formatting of code. This syntax is widely supported across browsers and engines.

Other Alternatives

If you want to implement similar filtering algorithms, consider the following alternatives:

Using forEach and includes: You can use a simple loop with forEach and includes methods to filter the array.
Using regular expressions: If the data is mostly numeric or can be represented as strings, you might be able to achieve filtering using regular expressions.

Code Review

The provided code preparation scripts are clear and concise. However, it's essential to note that the fill() method used in the script creation might not be suitable for all browsers (e.g., older versions of Internet Explorer). You may want to consider alternative approaches for ensuring compatibility across different environments.

In conclusion, this benchmark definition provides a useful comparison between two filtering approaches using JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach and considering alternative methods, you can make informed decisions about optimizing your code for better performance.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze the provided benchmark definition.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring performance in JavaScript. The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Test reduce**: This test case measures the performance of a function that uses the `reduce` method to filter an array based on whether each element is present in another array.
2. **Test 2**: This test case measures the performance of a function that uses the `Set` data structure and the `filter` method to achieve similar filtering, but with a different approach.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Using `reduce`**: The first test case (Test reduce) uses the `reduce` method to filter the array.
2. **Using `Set` and `filter`**: The second test case (Test 2) uses a `Set` data structure and the `filter` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `reduce`**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, concise code.
	* Cons: Can be less efficient for large datasets due to the overhead of the `reduce` method.
2. **Using `Set` and `filter`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of the `reduce` method.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new data structure (the Set), which can lead to higher memory usage.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of the `Array.from()` method is specific to modern JavaScript versions, and its implementation may vary depending on the browser or engine used.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature common in modern JavaScript: **Template Literals (`\r\n`)**, which allows for easier formatting of code. This syntax is widely supported across browsers and engines.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to implement similar filtering algorithms, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Using `forEach` and `includes`**: You can use a simple loop with `forEach` and `includes` methods to filter the array.
2. **Using regular expressions**: If the data is mostly numeric or can be represented as strings, you might be able to achieve filtering using regular expressions.

**Code Review**

The provided code preparation scripts are clear and concise. However, it's essential to note that the `fill()` method used in the script creation might not be suitable for all browsers (e.g., older versions of Internet Explorer). You may want to consider alternative approaches for ensuring compatibility across different environments.

Related benchmarks:

Test perfomance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test reduce vs Test 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result