Benchmark: eateat - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const ar1 = [1, 2, 3];
const ar2 = [1, 2, 3];

Tests:

json
const ar1 = [1, 2, 3]; const ar2 = [1, 2, 3]; JSON.stringify(ar1) === JSON.stringify(ar2);
funct
const ar1 = [1, 2, 3]; const ar2 = [1, 2, 3]; function compareArrays(one, two) { if (one.length === two.length) { for (let i = 0; i < one.length; i++) { if (one[i] !== two[i]) { return false; } } return true; } return false; } compareArrays(ar1, ar2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
json
funct

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 provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It defines two test cases:

1. `eateat` (not used in the latest benchmark results): This is an empty benchmark with no actual code or description. Its purpose is unclear, but it might be a placeholder or a test for nothing being defined.
2. `json`: This test case measures the performance of comparing two arrays using the `===` operator and `JSON.stringify()`.
3. `funct`: This test case measures the performance of a custom function that compares two arrays element-wise.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares different approaches to compare arrays:

1. **Simple `===` operator**: This method uses the built-in equality operator (`===`) to compare elements of the arrays.
2. **Custom function**: The `funct` test case uses a custom function `compareArrays()` that iterates through the arrays and checks for element-wise equality.

**Pros and Cons**

1. Simple `===` operator:
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and easy to implement.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for certain types of data (e.g., non-numeric values) or edge cases.
2. Custom function (`compareArrays()`):
	* Pros: More flexible and robust than the simple `===` operator, but may be slower due to the additional logic.
	* Cons: More complex and harder to implement.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases use any external libraries that are not part of the JavaScript standard library. However, `JSON.stringify()` is a built-in function that might have some implementation-specific optimizations depending on the browser or engine used.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The tests are straightforward and rely on basic language constructs.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches to compare arrays could include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.every()` or `Array.prototype.some()`, which provide more concise and expressive ways to check for element-wise equality.
2. Utilizing third-party libraries like Lodash, which provides a `isEqual()` function that can be used to compare arrays in a more flexible way.
3. Implementing a custom iterator-based solution to compare arrays, which could potentially be faster or more efficient than the simple `===` operator.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be relevant to this specific benchmark, and their performance characteristics may vary depending on the context and use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.120 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 77 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
json	746932.3 Ops/sec
funct	132572328.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eateat (version: 0)

eateata

Comparing performance of: json vs funct

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

json

funct

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):