var arr = [];
var count = 100000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
arr.push(i);
}
const folderSet = new Set()
arr.forEach((f) => {
folderSet.add(f)
})
var end = [folderSet]
const result = arr.map((f) => f)
var end = [new Set(result)]
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
set add | |
map |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
set add | 101.8 Ops/sec |
map | 109.2 Ops/sec |
I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.
Benchmark Definition:
The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:
Set
data structure to add elements and then converting it to an array.map()
function to create a new array with the same elements as the original array, and then using a Set
to remove duplicates.Script Preparation Code:
The script creates an empty array arr
and sets a variable count
to 100,000. The loop iterates from 0 to count-1
, pushing each number into the arr
array.
Html Preparation Code:
There is no HTML preparation code provided.
Individual Test Cases:
The benchmark consists of two test cases:
const folderSet = new Set();
arr.forEach((f) => {
folderSet.add(f);
});
var end = [...folderSet];
This test case creates a new Set
called folderSet
and adds all elements from the arr
array to it using the forEach()
method. The resulting set is then converted back to an array and assigned to the variable end
.
const result = arr.map((f) => f);
var end = [...new Set(result)];
This test case uses the map()
function to create a new array called result
with the same elements as the original arr
array, but with each element duplicated (i.e., the identity function is applied). The resulting array is then passed to the Set
constructor, which removes duplicates, and the resulting set is converted back to an array.
Pros and Cons:
Set
is an O(1) operation.map()
can use parallel processing.Library:
The only library used in this benchmark is the built-in Set
data structure in JavaScript.
Special JS Feature or Syntax:
None.
Other Considerations:
When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-off between performance and readability. If you need to perform a simple set operation with a small dataset, "set add" might be a better choice. However, if you're working with very large datasets or need to optimize for readability, "map" might be more suitable.
Alternatives:
Other alternatives to achieve the same goal include:
Array.from()
instead of Set()
: This method creates an array from an iterable object, which can be faster than creating a set and then converting it back to an array.const result = arr.map((f) => f);
var end = Array.from(new Set(result));
filter()
or reduce()
instead of Set()
: These methods allow you to filter or aggregate elements in the original array, which can be faster than creating a set and then removing duplicates.const result = arr.map((f) => f);
var end = result.filter((f) => true); // no-op, just returns the entire array
Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and memory usage.