Benchmark: Filter+pop vs simple for

Script Preparation code:

testData = [
	{ test: null, a: 'd' },
	{ test: 0, a: '#' },
	{ test: 50, a: 'c' },
	{ test: 100, a: 'Q' },
]

Tests:

Filter + pop
const obj = testData.filter((item) => item.test <= 100).pop(); return obj.a;
For cycle
let i = 0; for (i = 0; i < testData.length; i++) { if (testData[i].test > 100) { break; } } return testData[i-1].a;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter + pop
For cycle

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter + pop	6066884.5 Ops/sec
For cycle	807916.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two different approaches to filtering and iterating over an array in JavaScript: `filter()` + `pop` and a simple `for` loop. Here's a breakdown of what's tested:

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two separate test cases, each with its own `Benchmark Definition` code.

1. **Filter + pop**: This approach uses the `Array.prototype.filter()` method to create a new array containing only the elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function (in this case, `item.test <= 100`). The `pop()` method is then used to retrieve and return the last element of the filtered array.
2. **For cycle**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array. The loop iterates until it finds an element whose `test` property exceeds 100, at which point it breaks out of the loop and returns the previous element's value.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared in terms of their performance. This is measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Filter + pop**:
	+ Pros: concise, expressive code; efficient use of built-in methods.
	+ Cons: may incur additional overhead due to method calls; can be slower than traditional loops for very large arrays.
* **For cycle**:
	+ Pros: more control over iteration; no additional overhead from method calls.
	+ Cons: verbose code; requires explicit loop management.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the `filter()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that uses the ECMAScript standard (ES6+) to implement its functionality.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Code readability and maintainability: If you're working on a large codebase or need to optimize for performance-critical paths, the `filter()` + `pop` approach might be more concise and easier to understand.
* Performance requirements: For very large arrays or high-performance applications, the traditional `for` loop might be faster due to reduced overhead from method calls.
* Control over iteration: If you need fine-grained control over iteration, the `for` cycle approach provides more flexibility.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for filtering and iterating over arrays in JavaScript include:

* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provide optimized implementations of various array methods.
* Employing iterative algorithms that avoid built-in method calls, such as using a simple index-based loop to iterate over the array.
* Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops or `Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()`, which can be more expressive and concise than traditional loops.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Filter+pop vs simple for (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter + pop vs For cycle

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter + pop

For cycle

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):