Benchmark: size_compact vs sumBy

Script Preparation code:

window.array = [1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5];

Tests:

size_compact
const size = _.size(_.compact(window.array)); return size;
sum_by
const size = _.sumBy(window.array, child => (child ? 1 : 0)); return size;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
size_compact
sum_by

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 for you.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to calculate the size of an array with non-zero values:

1. `size_compact`: Uses the `_` object's `compact` function, which removes all falsy values from the array, and then returns the length of the resulting array.
2. `sum_by`: Uses the `_` object's `sumBy` function, which sums up the values in the array by applying a provided callback function to each element.

**Options Compared:**

The two approaches differ in how they process the input array:

* `size_compact` uses `compact`, which removes falsy values from the array.
* `sum_by` applies a callback function to each element, effectively counting non-zero values.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **`size_compact`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it only needs to iterate through the true values in the array.
		+ Less memory usage, as it doesn't create a new array with just the non-zero values.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly for arrays containing zero values or NaNs (Not a Number).
		+ Can be slower if the input array is very large and most elements are falsy.
2. **`sum_by`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Robust, as it can handle zero values and NaNs without issues.
		+ Allows for more flexibility in terms of how non-zero values are defined (e.g., using a custom callback function).
	* Cons:
		+ Slower, as it needs to iterate through the entire array and apply the callback function to each element.
		+ More memory usage, as it creates a new array with the results.

**Library Used:**

The `_` object is likely an alias for Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. The `compact` and `sumBy` functions are part of Lodash's functionality.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it does utilize ES6-style arrow functions (`=>`) in the callback function passed to `sumBy`.

**Alternatives:**

Other approaches could be taken to calculate the size of an array with non-zero values, such as:

1. Using `filter` and `length`: `const size = arr.filter(Boolean).length;`
2. Using a custom loop or recursive function.
3. Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `Array.prototype.reduce()`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not perform better than the original approaches in all scenarios, but they could provide an interesting comparison in terms of performance and readability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/73.0.3683.86 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 73 on Mac OS X 10.14.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
size_compact	1272489.6 Ops/sec
sum_by	942932.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

size_compact vs sumBy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: size_compact vs sum_by

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

size_compact

sum_by

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):