Benchmark: Qqqqqqq - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var as = [];
var as2 = [];
(function () {
  function A() {
    this.x = Math.random();
  }
  A.prototype.y = function (){};
  A.prototype.z = function (){};
  for (var i = 0; i < 15; ++i) {
    var a = new A();
    as.push(a);
    if (a.x < 0.5) {
      as2.push(a);
    }
  }
})();

Tests:

1
function f1 (run) { for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { if (run && as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1) { as[i].y(); } else { as[i].z(); } } as = run ? as2 : as; }; f1(false); f1(true);
2
function f2 (run) { if (run) { for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { if (as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1) { as[i].y(); } } as = as2; } for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { as[i].z(); } }; f2(false); f2(true);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates an array `as` and another array `as2`, then defines a function `A()` with two methods `y()` and `z()`. The script also creates 15 instances of the `A` class, pushes them into both arrays, and conditionally assigns one instance to either `as` or `as2` based on its `x` property value.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This field is empty in this case.

The script preparation code defines a benchmark with two test cases (`Test Name`) using the following JavaScript functions:

* `f1(run)`: Iterates over both arrays `as` and `as2`, calling either the `y()` or `z()` method on each instance of the `A` class. Depending on the value of the `run` parameter, it assigns one array to `as` or `as2`.
* `f2(run)`: Iterates over both arrays, but only calls the `y()` method if the instance is not in `as2`. After that, it assigns `as2` to `as`.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Test Case 1 (`f1`)**: Calls `f1(false)` followed by `f1(true)`, which means it will execute the first iteration of both functions and then reassign one array to the other based on the result.
2. **Test Case 2 (`f2`)**: Calls `f2(false)` followed by `f2(true)`, similar to Test Case 1.

**Library Used**

The script uses a JavaScript class (not explicitly declared as such, but it's implied by the function and object usage) with two methods: `y()` and `z()`. There is no explicit library reference in this code snippet, so I'll assume it's part of the standard JavaScript library or a custom implementation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require specific explanations. The usage of classes, objects, and functions is standard JavaScript syntax.

**Comparison Options**

The two test cases compare the performance of the following approaches:

1. `f1(run)`: Iterates over both arrays using a conditional statement (`if (run && as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1)`), and then reassigns one array to the other based on the result.
2. `f2(run)`: Iterates over both arrays, but only calls the `y()` method if the instance is not in `as2`. After that, it assigns `as2` to `as`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`f1(run)`**:
	* Pros: It uses a simple conditional statement and doesn't require additional memory allocation or copying.
	* Cons: The performance difference might be minimal due to the conditional statement overhead.
2. **`f2(run)`**:
	* Pros: It uses a more concise syntax and avoids the need for an explicit `indexOf()` call in the loop condition.
	* Cons: It requires an additional check (`as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1`) which might introduce some overhead.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to modify or extend this benchmark, you could consider the following alternatives:

1. Add more instances to either array to increase the performance difference between the two approaches.
2. Modify the `y()` and `z()` methods to have different execution times or behaviors.
3. Introduce additional randomization in the script preparation code to simulate real-world scenarios.
4. Use a different data structure, such as an object with properties, instead of arrays.

Please note that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition and individual test cases to accommodate the changes.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between two approaches for executing iterations over arrays with conditional statements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Fedora; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2987.133 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 57 on Fedora

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	191974.7 Ops/sec
2	123667.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Qqqqqqq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):