Benchmark: test filter - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4', null, undefined, 0];

Tests:

Test1
newArr.filter(Boolean)
Test2
newArr.filter((x) => !x)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2

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/101.0.4951.64 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	5620769.0 Ops/sec
Test2	16155974.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which defines two test cases:

*   `test filter`: This is the main benchmark definition, containing script preparation code and HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case).
*   Two individual test cases are defined as an array:
    *   `Test1` uses the `filter(Boolean)` method on an array `newArr`.
    *   `Test2` uses a custom filtering function `(x) => !x` on the same `newArr`.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared:

*   **`filter(Boolean)`**: This method filters out elements from the array that are falsy (e.g., null, undefined, 0). The idea is to measure how fast JavaScript can filter out non- truthy values.
*   **Custom filtering function `(x) => !x"`**: This approach uses a custom function to filter out elements. In this case, the function checks if each element `x` is falsy by negating its value (`!x`). This approach tests how fast JavaScript can execute a custom filtering logic.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

*   **`filter(Boolean)`**:
    *   Pros: Fast, optimized for performance, and widely supported in modern browsers.
    *   Cons: May not accurately represent real-world use cases where custom filtering is required.
*   **Custom filtering function `(x) => !x"`**:
    *   Pros: Can be used to test custom filtering scenarios that may not be covered by `filter(Boolean)` (e.g., testing for specific falsy values).
    *   Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the custom function execution, which can impact performance.

**Library**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in this benchmark definition. However, JavaScript's built-in array methods and functions are used, such as `filter()`.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None of the approaches mentioned involve any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect their interpretation across different browsers or environments.

**Other alternatives**

To create similar benchmarks, you can explore other filtering methods or custom filtering logic in JavaScript. Some examples include:

*   Using a regular expression to filter elements.
*   Utilizing `Array.prototype.every()` or `Array.prototype.some()` instead of `filter()`.
*   Employing a different data structure, such as an object, and using its built-in filtering methods.

When creating benchmarks, it's essential to consider the scope and purpose of your benchmark, as well as the specific requirements for testing. MeasureThat.net provides a useful platform for comparing performance across various browsers and environments, but you may need to adjust or create new benchmarks to suit your specific needs.

Related benchmarks:

test filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

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):