Benchmark: vs aaasassa - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var elements = [0, 1, false, 2, '', 3];

Tests:

filter
elements.filter(x => x!==undefined);
filter boolean
elements.filter(Boolean)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
filter boolean

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object that contains two essential pieces of information:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code is executed before running the actual benchmark. In this case, it defines an array `elements` with five values: `[0, 1, false, 2, '', 3]`. The script preparation code is used to set up a specific scenario for the benchmark.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This field is empty (`null`) in this example, indicating that no additional HTML setup is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Filter**: This test case uses the `filter()` method on the `elements` array with an arrow function `x => x !== undefined`. The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of filtering out `undefined` values from the array.
2. **Filter Boolean**: This test case also uses the `filter()` method, but this time it passes the `Boolean` function as the callback. In JavaScript, `false` and `0`, `null`, and `undefined` are considered falsy values, so filtering out `false` would be equivalent to filtering out `undefined`.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The two test cases compare different approaches to filtering out `undefined` values from the array:

1. **Filter with arrow function**: This approach uses an arrow function to define a predicate that filters out `undefined` values.
2. **Filter with Boolean function**: This approach passes the `Boolean` function as the callback, which has the same effect as the arrow function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Arrow Function**: Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive than passing a function reference.
	+ Can be easier to read and understand for developers familiar with arrow functions.
	Cons:
	+ May not be immediately clear to developers without experience with arrow functions.
* **Boolean Function**: Pros:
	+ Clearer intent: it explicitly states that `false` values should be filtered out.
	+ Less prone to typos, as the callback function is a single keyword (`Boolean`) rather than an anonymous function expression.
Cons:
	+ May seem less concise or elegant compared to the arrow function approach.

**Other Considerations**

* **Performance**: The performance of filtering `undefined` values from the array may be affected by the specific JavaScript engine and version being used. In this benchmark, both test cases execute at a similar speed (in terms of executions per second).
* **Error Handling**: Both test cases assume that the input array will always contain valid data. If the input array might contain `null` or `undefined` values, additional error handling may be necessary.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in these benchmark examples.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases beyond what's mentioned above (arrow functions and the `Boolean` function).

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark using a different approach, here are some alternatives:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.filter()` with a callback function**: This would involve defining a separate function that takes an element as input and returns a boolean indicating whether it should be included in the filtered array.
```javascript
function isNotUndefined(x) {
  return x !== undefined;
}

const result = elements.filter(isNotUndefined);
```
2. **Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of `filter()`**: This would involve using `map()` to create a new array with only the elements that are not `undefined`.
```javascript
const result = elements.map(x => x !== undefined ? x : null).filter(Boolean);
```
Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics or error handling requirements compared to the original benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	1101808.9 Ops/sec
filter boolean	3311906.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

vs aaasassa (version: 0)

vs

Comparing performance of: filter vs filter boolean

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

filter boolean

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):