Benchmark: Speed of ForI - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function getStatementYearsForI(numberOfYears) {
    const statementYears = [];
    const currentYear = new Date().getFullYear();

    for (let i = numberOfYears - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
        const year = currentYear - (i + 1);
        statementYears.push(`${year}`);
    }
    return statementYears;
};

Tests:

100 runs
function getStatementYearsForI(numberOfYears) { const statementYears = []; const currentYear = new Date().getFullYear(); for (let i = numberOfYears - 1; i >= 0; --i) { const year = currentYear - (i + 1); statementYears.push(`${year}`); } return statementYears; }; getStatementYearsForI(100)
1000
function getStatementYearsForI(numberOfYears) { const statementYears = []; const currentYear = new Date().getFullYear(); for (let i = numberOfYears - 1; i >= 0; --i) { const year = currentYear - (i + 1); statementYears.push(`${year}`); } return statementYears; }; getStatementYearsForI(1000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
100 runs
1000

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides a JavaScript function `getStatementYearsForI` that calculates an array of year strings for a given number of years. The function uses a simple loop to decrement the current year by 1 for each iteration.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **100 runs**: This option executes the function 100 times, calculating an array of year strings for 100 years.
2. **1000**: This option executes the function 1000 times, calculating an array of year strings for 1000 years.

The idea is to compare the execution time and performance differences between these two options.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Pros:**
	+ These options are simple and easy to understand.
	+ They allow for a straightforward comparison of execution times.
* **Cons:**
	+ The function's purpose and relevance may not be immediately clear, making it harder to interpret the results.
	+ The number of iterations is relatively small, which might not accurately represent real-world performance.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of `Date()` and `String.prototype.push()` suggests that the function relies on built-in JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special JS feature or syntax is being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward JavaScript function with no unusual constructs like async/await, generator functions, or ES6+ features.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark results are provided as raw UA strings, which might not be easily interpretable without some context.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value is calculated by dividing the total number of executions by the elapsed time in seconds. This provides a rough estimate of performance but may not account for other factors like system load or concurrent execution.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create similar benchmarks, consider exploring other options:

1. **Benchmarks with more complex functions**: Try using functions that incorporate more advanced JavaScript concepts, such as closures, higher-order functions, or async/await.
2. **Benchmarking different engines or versions**: Compare the performance of your function across multiple browsers, Node.js versions, or engine implementations (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey).
3. **Using existing benchmarking frameworks**: Utilize established libraries like Benchmark.js or jsperf to create and run more sophisticated benchmarks.
4. **Focusing on specific aspects of performance**: Instead of comparing overall execution times, focus on optimizing particular parts of your code, such as string concatenation or array iteration.

By exploring these alternatives and refining the benchmark approach, you can gain a deeper understanding of JavaScript performance and optimize your code for better efficiency.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
100 runs	1894630.4 Ops/sec
1000	228995.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Speed of ForI (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 100 runs vs 1000

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

100 runs

1000

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):