Benchmark: Binary search property vs. delegate

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array(1000).fill(0).map(_ => ({ value: Math.floor(500 * Math.random())}));

Tests:

Property
function find(x, a) { let min = 0; let max = a.length - 1; while (min <= max) { const guess = Math.floor((min + max) / 2); const item = a[guess]; const itemValue = item.value; if (x === itemValue) { return guess; } else if (x < itemValue) { max = guess - 1; } else { min = guess + 1; } } return null; } find (100, a);
Delegate
function find(x, a, getValue) { let min = 0; let max = a.length - 1; while (min <= max) { const guess = Math.floor((min + max) / 2); const item = a[guess]; const itemValue = getValue(item); if (x === itemValue) { return guess; } else if (x < itemValue) { max = guess - 1; } else { min = guess + 1; } } return null; } find (100, a, item => item.value);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Property
Delegate

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests two approaches to find an element in an array: using a property (also known as "immediate invocation") and using a delegate (a function that takes another function as an argument).

In the `Script Preparation Code`, we have:
```javascript
var a = Array(1000).fill(0).map(_ => ({ value: Math.floor(500 * Math.random())}));
```
This code creates an array `a` of 1000 elements, each with a random `value`. This array will be used as the search space for our benchmark.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Property**: Using a property (in this case, the `item.value`) to access the element's value.
2. **Delegate**: Using a delegate function (`getValue(item)`) to access the element's value.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Property:**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward
* Fast and efficient, as it directly accesses the element's property

Cons:

* May not work with complex objects or those that don't define a `value` property.
* Can be slower if the object is large and has many properties.

**Delegate:**

Pros:

* More flexible, as it can handle any property of an object
* Can be useful for caching or memoization, as the delegate function can store results from previous executions

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of calling a separate function.
* Requires more code and setup, as you need to define the delegate function.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `Array.prototype` methods (e.g., `map`, `fill`) are used, which are part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned, but it's worth noting that the use of arrow functions (`item => item.value`) is a relatively modern JavaScript feature (introduced in ECMAScript 2015).

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test other approaches, some alternatives could include:

* Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a tree.
* Implementing your own binary search algorithm instead of using an existing library.
* Testing the performance of different optimization techniques, such as caching or parallel processing.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark definition and script preparation code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:59.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/59.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 59 on Mac OS X 10.12

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Property	12169824.0 Ops/sec
Delegate	11677026.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Binary search property vs. delegate (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Property vs Delegate

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Property

Delegate

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):