Benchmark: testds - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8']
var arr2 = ['1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8']

Tests:

toString
arr.toString() === arr2.toString()
every
if (arr.length === arr2.length) { return arr.every((element, index) => { if (element === arr2[index]) { return true; } return false; })};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
every

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString	2884030.2 Ops/sec
every	2257222.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested on the provided JSON.

The benchmark is designed to test two different JavaScript functions: `toString()` and `every()`. The tests are comparing the performance of these functions on identical input data.

Let's break down each test case:

**Test Case 1: "toString"**

* The benchmark definition checks if the result of calling `arr.toString()` is equal to the result of calling `arr2.toString()`.
* Both arrays, `arr` and `arr2`, contain the same elements: numbers from 1 to 8.
* The purpose of this test is likely to measure how quickly JavaScript can compare two strings (the results of `toString()` calls) using a simple equality check.

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward test case
* Easy to understand and execute

Cons:

* Only tests a single aspect of the function's behavior (equality checking)
* Doesn't cover more complex scenarios, like edge cases or performance under heavy load

**Test Case 2: "every"**

* The benchmark definition checks if the result of calling `arr.every((element, index) => { ... })` is equal to `true`.
* The callback function inside `every()` iterates over each element in the array and checks if it's equal to the corresponding element in `arr2`. If any mismatch is found, the function returns `false`.

Pros:

* Tests a more comprehensive aspect of the function's behavior (iteration and comparison)
* Can reveal issues with performance under heavy load or complex data structures

Cons:

* More complex test case due to the nested callback function
* May be less representative of real-world usage scenarios

**Library: None**

There are no external libraries being used in these benchmark definitions.

**Special JavaScript feature: `every()` with callback functions**

The `every()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that iterates over an array and returns `true` if all elements pass the test (i.e., return `true`). The callback function passed to `every()` allows for more fine-grained control over the iteration process.

In this benchmark, the callback function used in `every()` checks for exact equality between corresponding elements. This is a common use case for `every()`, but it may not be representative of all scenarios where `every()` is used.

**Other alternatives**

To compare these results with other browsers or JavaScript engines, the benchmark can be modified to include different:

* Browsers: Different versions or profiles of Chrome, Firefox, Edge, etc.
* Devices: Mobile devices, tablets, or laptops
* Operating Systems: Windows, macOS, Linux, etc.
* Network conditions: With or without network throttling
* Hardware configurations: With varying CPU speeds, memory, or disk storage

By exploring these alternatives, you can gain a better understanding of how different browsers and environments affect the performance of JavaScript functions like `toString()` and `every()`.

Related benchmarks:

testds (version: 0)

yesy

Comparing performance of: toString vs every

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

every

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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