Benchmark: Comparing arrays of Numbers

Tests:

For Loop Comparison
const size = 10000, a1 = new Array(size), a2 = new Array(size) for(let n = 0; n < size; n++) { a1[n] = n a2[n] = n } let eq = true for(let n = 0; n < size; n++) { if(a1[n] !== a2[n]) { eq = false break } } return eq
While Loop Comparison
const size = 10000, a1 = new Array(size), a2 = new Array(size) for(let n = 0; n < size; n++) { a1[n] = n a2[n] = n } let n = 0 while(a1[n] === a2[n] && n < size) { n++ } return n === size
< or > Operators Comparison
const size = 10000, a1 = new Array(size), a2 = new Array(size) for(let n = 0; n < size; n++) { a1[n] = n a2[n] = n } return !(a1 < a2 || a1 > a2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For Loop Comparison
While Loop Comparison
< or > Operators Comparison

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare three different methods for checking if two sorted arrays of integer values are equal. The test cases measure the performance of:

1. For Loop Comparison
2. While Loop Comparison
3. `< or > Operators Comparison`

**Options Compared**

Each test case uses a specific method to compare the two arrays, resulting in three distinct approaches being measured.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **For Loop Comparison**
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods due to the overhead of explicit loop control structures.
2. **While Loop Comparison**
	* Pros: Can be faster than for loops since it avoids the overhead of explicit loop control structures.
	* Cons: Less intuitive and may be harder to read for some developers.
3. **< or > Operators Comparison**
	* Pros: Often faster due to the optimized execution path in the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons: May be less readable and more prone to errors since it uses implicit comparison operators.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries, but they do utilize built-in JavaScript features such as arrays, loops, and conditional statements.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They only rely on standard JavaScript programming constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark using the same approach but with different implementations, here's an alternative:

```javascript
// Alternative For Loop Comparison implementation
function forLoopComparison(a, b) {
  let eq = true;
  for (let n = 0; n < a.length && eq; n++) {
    if (a[n] !== b[n]) {
      eq = false;
    }
  }
  return eq;
}

// Alternative While Loop Comparison implementation
function whileLoopComparison(a, b) {
  let eq = true;
  let n = 0;
  while (eq && n < a.length) {
    if (a[n] !== b[n]) {
      eq = false;
    }
    n++;
  }
  return eq;
}

// Alternative < or > Operators Comparison implementation
function operatorsComparison(a, b) {
  return !(a < b || a > b);
}
```

You can then use these implementations in your benchmark to measure their performance against the original test cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/61.0.3163.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 61 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Loop Comparison	16478.8 Ops/sec
While Loop Comparison	3951.8 Ops/sec
< or > Operators Comparison	616.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Comparing arrays of Numbers (version: 0)

Testing different methods of comparing 2 sorted arrays of integer values

Comparing performance of: For Loop Comparison vs While Loop Comparison vs < or > Operators Comparison

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For Loop Comparison

While Loop Comparison

< or > Operators Comparison

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):