Benchmark: BC just a quick test of jq vs native map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

const src = [ 1, undefined, 3, undefined, 5, undefined, 7, undefined, 9];

function testjq() {
  $.map(src, x => x);
}

function testnative() {
  src.map(x => x).filter( x => x !== undefined );
}

Tests:

test JQ
testjq();
test native
testnative();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test JQ
test native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches:

1. Using jQuery (`jq`) for array manipulation
2. Using native JavaScript for array manipulation (i.e., without any additional libraries)

The script preparation code defines an array `src` containing both defined and undefined values. Two functions are then defined: `testjq()` and `testnative()`. Both functions attempt to manipulate the `src` array, but they use different methods:

* `testjq()` uses jQuery's `.map()` method to iterate over the array and returns a new array with only the defined values.
* `testnative()` uses native JavaScript's `map()` method (similar to jQuery's) followed by the `filter()` method to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons**

Using jQuery for array manipulation has several pros:

* Easier to read and write, especially for developers familiar with the library
* Provides a more straightforward API for common tasks
* Can take advantage of optimized implementations within the library

However, using jQuery also has some cons:

* Adds an extra dependency (the jQuery library) that increases page load time
* May not perform as well as native JavaScript in all scenarios
* Can lead to performance issues if not used carefully (e.g., when dealing with very large datasets)

On the other hand, using native JavaScript for array manipulation has its own pros:

* No extra dependencies or overhead
* Can be optimized specifically for the use case
* May perform better than jQuery in certain situations

However, native JavaScript also has some cons:

* Requires a deeper understanding of the underlying API and potential pitfalls
* May not provide the same level of readability or maintainability as jQuery
* Can be more error-prone if not implemented correctly

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides an easy-to-use API for manipulating HTML documents, DOM elements, and events. In this benchmark, jQuery is used to simplify array manipulation using its `.map()` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other Considerations**

When running this benchmark, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* The size of the input data: Larger datasets may require more time and resources to process.
* The browser and device being used: Different browsers and devices may exhibit varying performance characteristics when executing native JavaScript versus using a library like jQuery.
* The specific use case: Depending on the application, one approach might be better suited than the other.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for array manipulation in JavaScript include:

* Lodash (another popular utility library)
* Ramda (a functional programming library)
* Vanilla JavaScript libraries like Array.prototype methods (e.g., `every()`, `some()`, etc.)
* Other specialized libraries (e.g., for specific tasks like data compression, encryption, or analytics)

These alternatives may offer trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability compared to jQuery and native JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test JQ	1266821.9 Ops/sec
test native	528665.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

BC just a quick test of jq vs native map (version: 0)

benchmark different versions of jquery

Comparing performance of: test JQ vs test native

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test JQ

test native

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):