Benchmark: Deduplicate 4 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Sort
let array = []; for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { array.push(1); array.push(i); } array.sort((a, b) => a - b); let newArray = [array[0]]; for(let i = 1; i < array.length; i ++) { if(array[i-1] !== array[i]) { newArray.push(array[i]) } }
Set
const array = []; for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { array.push(1); array.push(i); } const out = [...new Set(array)];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Sort
Set

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 provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches to deduplicate an array: a manual approach using a loop and conditional statements (`Sort`), versus a built-in `Set` data structure (`Set`). The goal is to measure which approach provides better performance in terms of execution time.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Manual Deduplication (Sort)**:
	* Uses a loop to iterate through the array and check for duplicates.
	* Uses conditional statements (`if`) to determine whether each element is unique or not.
2. **Built-in Set Data Structure (Set)**:
	* Creates an empty set from the original array using the spread operator (`[...new Set(array)]`).
	* Leverages the built-in `Set` data structure's optimized duplicate removal mechanism.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Manual Deduplication (Sort)**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to understand and implement.
		+ Can be modified or extended as needed.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur performance penalties due to unnecessary iterations or comparisons.
2. **Built-in Set Data Structure (Set)**
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for duplicate removal, reducing execution time.
		+ Eliminates the need for manual loop and conditional statements.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility, as it relies on the built-in `Set` data structure.

**Library/Functionality Used:**

None in this benchmark definition. The code uses only JavaScript's standard library and basic syntax.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. The code is straightforward and easy to understand.

**Other Considerations:**

1. **Array Size:** Both test cases create an array of 100,000 elements.
2. **Execution Time:** The benchmark measures the execution time for each approach, providing a relative comparison between the two methods.

**Alternatives:**
If you were to rewrite this benchmark or explore alternative approaches, some options could include:

1. Using other data structures, like `Map` or `WeakSet`, to deduplicate arrays.
2. Implementing custom sorting algorithms (e.g., QuickSort, MergeSort) for comparison.
3. Incorporating caching mechanisms to reduce unnecessary computations.
4. Utilizing parallel processing techniques to speed up execution times.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Sort	57.0 Ops/sec
Set	192.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Deduplicate 4 (version: 0)

Improve perf of sort

Comparing performance of: Sort vs Set

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Sort

Set

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):