Benchmark: bnjf-unique - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

a = [1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2, 9];

Tests:

partner dict
seen = {}; a.filter(ai => !(ai in seen) && (seen[ai] = true))
set
Array.from(new Set(a))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
partner dict
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.125 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Mac OS X 10.15.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
partner dict	336612.4 Ops/sec
set	1239479.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the benchmark being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript in two different scenarios: filtering an array using `filter()` and creating a set from an array using `Array.from()`. The benchmark uses a small test dataset containing 9 elements, with duplicates (e.g., multiple occurrences of the number 2).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Filtering an array**: Two approaches are compared:
	* Using `filter()` with a callback function that checks if each element is not in the `seen` object and marks it as seen.
	* Using `filter()` with a callback function that only checks if each element is a duplicate (i.e., not in the `seen` object).
2. **Creating a set**: Two approaches are compared:
	* Using `Array.from()` to create a set from the array, which is equivalent to creating a set by iterating over the array and adding elements to it.
3. **Library usage**: The benchmark uses the `Set` object as a library to create sets.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Filtering an array using `filter()` with a callback function that checks for duplicates**:
	* Pros: Simple and efficient, allows for easy filtering without creating intermediate data structures.
	* Cons: May perform unnecessary work if the filter condition is not optimized.
2. **Filtering an array using `filter()` with a callback function that only checks for duplicates**:
	* Pros: Optimized for filtering out duplicates, reduces unnecessary computations.
	* Cons: Requires additional logic to check for duplicate elements.
3. **Creating a set using `Array.from()`**:
	* Pros: Creates a set efficiently and accurately, without the need for manual iteration.
	* Cons: May incur overhead due to the creation of an intermediate data structure.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a small test dataset to minimize the impact of variables like array size and content on the results.
* The use of `Set` object as a library allows for efficient set creation without relying on custom implementations.
* The two filtering approaches differ in their logic: one checks for duplicates, while the other doesn't.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to test these scenarios might include:

* Using `Array.prototype.every()` instead of `filter()` for a different filtering approach.
* Comparing performance with using `Map` instead of `Set`.
* Testing larger datasets to see how scaling affects performance.
* Examining the impact of specific optimizations, such as caching or parallel processing.

Related benchmarks:

bnjf-unique (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: partner dict vs set

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

partner dict

set

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):