Benchmark: oneof loop vs idx

Script Preparation code:

      /**
       * @param {...*} var_args
       */
      var oneofloop = function oneof(var_args) {
         var first = arguments[0];
         for(var i=1; i<arguments.length; i++)
         {
            if ( first == arguments[i] )
            {
               return true;
            }
         }
         return false;
      }
            /**
       * @param {...*} var_args
       */
      var oneofidx = function oneof(var_args) {
        var first = arguments[0];
        var argArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
        return argArray.indexOf(first)!=-1;
      }

Tests:

loop
oneofloop(3,1,2,3,4,5)
indexof
oneofidx(3,1,2,3,4,5)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loop
indexof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition is a JavaScript function that tests two different approaches to check if an element exists in an array of values. The functions are `oneofloop` and `oneofidx`.

**oneofloop Function**

This function takes variable arguments (i.e., it can take any number of arguments) and checks if the first argument (`first`) is equal to any of the subsequent arguments using a traditional `for` loop.

**oneofidx Function**

This function also takes variable arguments, but it uses the `indexOf` method of the Array prototype to check if the `first` argument exists in the array. The `indexOf` method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or `-1` if it's not found.

**Comparison and Pros/Cons**

The two approaches are compared for performance.

* **oneofloop**: This approach has a higher overhead due to the traditional `for` loop, which means it may be slower.
	+ Pros: Easy to understand and implement, works well for small arrays.
	+ Cons: Inefficient for large arrays, as it checks every element individually.
* **oneofidx**: This approach uses the optimized `indexOf` method, which is likely to be faster.
	+ Pros: Efficient for large arrays, uses optimized library function.
	+ Cons: May require additional library dependencies (in this case, the Array prototype), harder to understand and implement.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The `oneofidx` function uses the `Array.prototype.indexOf` method, which is a built-in JavaScript method that's part of the ECMAScript standard. This means it's widely supported across different browsers and devices.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, some possible options could be:

* Using a `Set` data structure instead of an array, which would likely provide better performance for large datasets.
* Implementing a custom binary search algorithm, which would be more efficient than the `indexOf` method but might be harder to implement correctly.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and script preparation code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
loop	4000583.0 Ops/sec
indexof	1486841.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

oneof loop vs idx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: loop vs indexof

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

loop

indexof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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