Benchmark: checking maping vs mapingfiltering

Script Preparation code:

var table = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15];
var ids = ["1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15"];

Tests:

mapping + filtering
ids.map(Number).forEach((id) => { const areEqual = table[0] === id; });
filtering
ids.forEach((id) => { const areEqual = table[0] === Number(id); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
mapping + filtering
filtering

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test created using MeasureThat.net. The test aims to compare the performance of two approaches: mapping and filtering.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Mapping**: This approach uses the `map()` method to create a new array with the same length as the original array, but with transformed elements. In this case, it's used to convert the `ids` string array to a numeric array using `Number()`.
2. **Filtering**: This approach uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the `ids` array and compare each element to the first element of the `table` array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Mapping**: Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive code.
	+ Less prone to errors, as it avoids manual iteration.
* Cons:
	+ Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive for large datasets.
	+ May not be suitable for very large datasets due to performance constraints.
* **Filtering**: Pros:
	+ Does not create a new array, which can be beneficial for memory-constrained scenarios.
	+ Can be more flexible, as it allows for manual iteration and logic control.
* Cons:
	+ More verbose code.
	+ Prone to errors, as manual iteration requires careful attention.

**Library: Lodash**

The `map()` method is part of the JavaScript standard library. However, if you're looking at the benchmark definition JSON provided, it's likely that this test uses a version of JavaScript that doesn't support the `map()` method natively. In such cases, you might be using a library like Lodash to provide the `map()` function.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JS features or syntax being used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**

The script preparation code creates two arrays:

* `table`: an array of numbers from 1 to 15, repeated twice.
* `ids`: an array of strings representing the same numbers as `table`, but with quotes around each value.

This setup allows for easy comparison between the mapping and filtering approaches.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could be explored:

1. **Using Array.prototype.reduce()**: Instead of using `map()` or `forEach()`, you could use `reduce()` to iterate over the `ids` array.
2. **Using a library like Lodash's 'filter' function**: As mentioned earlier, Lodash provides a `filter()` function that can be used instead of `forEach()` for filtering arrays.
3. **Using a custom iteration loop**: If you're looking for extreme optimization or memory efficiency, you could consider implementing your own custom iteration loop using a `for` loop or another iteration method.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific requirements and performance constraints.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
mapping + filtering	506196.9 Ops/sec
filtering	226033.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

checking maping vs mapingfiltering (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: mapping + filtering vs filtering

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

mapping + filtering

filtering

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):