Benchmark: Set vs Filter vs forEach for unique

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array.from({length: 40}, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 140));

Tests:

Set spread
const f = [... new Set(array)]
Array from set
const s = new Set(array) const l = Array.from(s)
Filter
const b = array.filter((i,index) => array.indexOf(i)=== index)
Basic forEach
const set = {} array.forEach(val => set.hasOwnProperty(val) ? set[val] = true : '') const b = Object.keys(set)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set spread
Array from set
Filter
Basic forEach

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares four approaches to remove duplicates from an array:

1. `Set` using the spread operator (`Set spread`)
2. Using a `Set` explicitly (`Array from set`)
3. Filtering the original array (`Filter`)
4. Using `forEach` with a boolean flag to track unique elements (`Basic forEach`)

**Test Case Explanation**

Each test case is defined in a separate object, which includes:

* `Benchmark Definition`: The actual code that performs the benchmarking operation.
* `Test Name`: A descriptive name for the test case.

Here's a brief explanation of each test case:

1. **Set spread**: Creates a new Set from the input array using the spread operator (`[...new Set(array)]`). This method is concise and efficient, but may incur additional overhead due to the creation of an intermediate Set object.
2. **Array from set**: First creates a Set from the input array using `new Set(array)`, then converts it back to an array using `Array.from(s)`. This approach involves two separate operations: creating a Set and converting it to an array.
3. **Filter**: Uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with only unique elements, where each element is checked against its original index in the input array (`array.filter((i, index) => array.indexOf(i) === index)`). This approach has higher overhead due to the need for indexing and comparing elements.
4. **Basic forEach**: Uses `forEach()` with a boolean flag to track unique elements by checking if an element is already present in an object using the `hasOwnProperty` method (`array.forEach((val) => set.hasOwnProperty(val) ? set[val] = true : '')`). This approach also has higher overhead due to the use of `forEach()` and the need for object lookup.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses a few libraries:

* None explicitly, but it relies on built-in JavaScript methods like `Set`, `Array.from()`, `filter()`, and `forEach()`. However, some browsers may have slightly different implementations of these methods, which could affect the results.
* No external libraries are mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript best practices.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

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

1. **Set spread**: Pros: concise, efficient; Cons: may incur additional overhead due to intermediate Set object creation.
2. **Array from set**: Pros: explicit control over data transformation; Cons: two separate operations, potential overhead from Set and array conversion.
3. **Filter**: Pros: simple, easy to understand; Cons: higher overhead due to indexing and comparison, slower performance.
4. **Basic forEach**: Pros: easy to implement, no external dependencies; Cons: higher overhead due to `forEach()` and object lookup.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to remove duplicates from an array, consider the following:

* Using a hash map (e.g., `Map`) instead of a Set.
* Using a more efficient data structure like a trie or suffix tree.
* Utilizing specialized libraries like Lodash's `uniq` function.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may not be suitable for all use cases. The choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements, performance constraints, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Set spread	1312297.8 Ops/sec
Array from set	1220334.4 Ops/sec
Filter	259984.4 Ops/sec
Basic forEach	3053994.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Set vs Filter vs forEach for unique (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set spread vs Array from set vs Filter vs Basic forEach

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set spread

Array from set

Filter

Basic forEach

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):