var testArray = Array.from(Array(100000)).map(i => Math.floor(Math.random() * 10))
Array.from(new Set(testArray))
testArray.filter((v, i, a) => a.indexOf(v) === i)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
using Set | |
using filter |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
using Set | 664.2 Ops/sec |
using filter | 597.2 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.
What is tested?
The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring JavaScript performance. The tests are designed to measure the time taken by different approaches to remove duplicate values from an array of 100,000 random integers.
Options compared:
There are two options compared:
filter()
method to create a new array with only the first occurrence of each value.Pros and Cons:
filter()
.Other considerations:
When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider the following:
filter()
might be more intuitive.filter()
might be a better choice.Library usage:
There are no external libraries used in these tests. The Set data structure and the Array.prototype methods (like filter()) are built-in JavaScript features.
Special JS feature or syntax:
No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these tests.
Now, let's look at some alternative approaches:
Set
or filter()
, you could use the reduce()
method to remove duplicates. This approach has a similar time complexity to using Set
.map()
to create an array with only unique elements, like this: [...new Set(testArray.map(i => i))]
. However, this approach would be less efficient than using Set
or reduce()
, as it involves two extra iterations over the data.Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not provide the same level of performance or readability as using Set
or filter()
.