Benchmark: intersect v1 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var watched = [];
var ignored = [];

for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){watched.push({programId:Math.random()});}
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ignored.push({programId:Math.random()});}

Tests:

naive compare
watched.filter(wObj => { return !ignored.some((iObj, ndx) => iObj.programId === wObj.programId); });
some; swap and shorten len
let ml = ignored.length -1; watched.filter(wObj => !ignored.some((iObj, ndx) => { if (iObj.programId === wObj.programId) { ignored[ndx].programId = ignored[ml--].programId; ignored.length = ml; return true; } return false; }) );
for; swap and shorten len
let ml = ignored.length -1; watched.filter(wObj => { for (let i = 0; i < ml; i++) { if (wObj.programId === ignored[i].programId) { ignored[i].programId = ignored[ml--].programId; return false; } } return true; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
naive compare
some; swap and shorten len
for; swap and shorten len

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different algorithms for intersecting two arrays: `watched` and `ignored`. The arrays contain 10,000 random program IDs.

**Algorithms Compared**

1. **Naive Compare**: This algorithm uses a simple iterative approach to filter out matching elements in both arrays.
2. **Some; Swap and Shorten Len**: This algorithm uses the `some()` method to check for matches and then iteratively swaps and shortens the `ignored` array until no matches are found.
3. **For; Swap and Shorten Len**: Similar to the previous one, but uses a `for` loop instead of `some()`.

**Options Compared**

* Iterative vs. Functional Programming Approach: The algorithms differ in their use of iteration (naive compare) or functional programming techniques (some; swap and shorten len).
* Use of Built-in Methods: Some algorithms use built-in methods like `some()` and `length` (some; swap and shorten len), while others rely on explicit loops (naive compare, for; swap and shorten len).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Naive Compare**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Inefficient use of iteration can lead to slow performance.
* **Some; Swap and Shorten Len**:
	+ Pros: Uses built-in methods, potentially more efficient than naive compare.
	+ Cons: May have higher overhead due to function calls.
* **For; Swap and Shorten Len**:
	+ Pros: Similar to some; swap and shorten len, but potentially more efficient.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive for developers familiar with iterative approaches.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided algorithms rely on external libraries. However, they do use built-in JavaScript methods like `some()` and `length`.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

* None mentioned in this explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

* Other intersection algorithms can be considered, such as using `filter()` or `reduce()`.
* Using a more efficient data structure, like a hash table, could also improve performance.
* Multi-threading or parallel processing techniques might further accelerate the benchmark results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/125.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
naive compare	11.8 Ops/sec
some; swap and shorten len	8.6 Ops/sec
for; swap and shorten len	0.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

intersect v1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: naive compare vs some; swap and shorten len vs for; swap and shorten len

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

naive compare

some; swap and shorten len

for; swap and shorten len

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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