Benchmark: articles performance

Script Preparation code:

const fetchArticles = async () => {
 fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos/1')
      .then(response => response.json())
}

Tests:

option 1
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/photos') .then(response => response.json()) .then(articles => [...articles].reverse().slice(0, 4));
option 2
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/photos') .then(response => response.json()) .then(articles => articles.slice(-4).reverse());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
option 1
option 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
option 1	5341.5 Ops/sec
option 2	5333.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Overview**

The benchmark consists of two test cases that measure the performance of JavaScript code on fetching data from a JSON placeholder API. The tests are designed to compare different approaches for processing the fetched data.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an asynchronous function `fetchArticles` that fetches data from the specified URL, parses it as JSON, and returns the parsed data.
```javascript
const fetchArticles = async () => {
  fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos/1')
    .then(response => response.json())
}
```
This code is used as a baseline for both test cases.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark includes two test cases that compare different approaches for processing the fetched data:

**Option 1**
```javascript
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/photos') 
  .then(response => response.json()) 
  .then(articles => [...articles].reverse().slice(0, 4));
```
In this approach, we use `Array.prototype.slice()` to extract a subset of the data and then reverse it using `Array.prototype.reverse()`. The resulting array is sliced again to get only the first 4 elements.

**Option 2**
```javascript
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/photos') 
  .then(response => response.json()) 
  .then(articles => articles.slice(-4).reverse());
```
In this approach, we use `Array.prototype.slice()` to extract a subset of the data and then reverse it using `Array.prototype.reverse()`. The resulting array is sliced again to get only the last 4 elements.

**Pros and Cons**

**Option 1:**

Pros:

* More explicit control over the slice operation
* Can be beneficial for larger datasets where we want to process a specific range of data

Cons:

* Additional overhead due to the extra `reverse()` and `slice()` operations

**Option 2:**

Pros:

* Less overhead compared to Option 1
* Still achieves the desired result by reversing the array and then slicing it from the end

Cons:

* May not be suitable for larger datasets where we want to process a specific range of data

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, `fetch()` is used to make an HTTP request. `Fetch()` is a modern API for making requests in JavaScript that provides more features and flexibility compared to traditional methods like `XMLHttpRequest`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark code.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to consider when measuring performance:

* Using `for` loops instead of `Array.prototype.forEach()` or `forEach()`
* Using `map()` and `reduce()` functions for data processing
* Using different libraries or frameworks (e.g., jQuery, React) for fetching and processing data

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

articles performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: option 1 vs option 2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

option 1

option 2

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):