Benchmark: jkljkljkljlkjkljkjkljlk

Tests:

a
Array.from(new Set([1,2,3,4,5,6,7]))
b
[...(new Set([1,2,3,4,5,6,7]))]
c
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7].filter((v, i, a) => a.indexOf(v) === i)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b
c

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which outlines the test case(s) to be executed. In this explanation, we will break down what is tested in the provided benchmark, compare different approaches, discuss pros and cons, and identify libraries used.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This is an empty string, indicating that no additional code needs to be executed before running the test case.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This is also an empty string, suggesting that no HTML preparation is required for this test.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark defines three individual test cases:

1. **Test Case "a"**:
	* Benchmark Definition: `Array.from(new Set([1,2,3,4,5,6,7]))`
	* Purpose: This test case creates an array from a set of numbers and measures the performance of this operation.
2. **Test Case "b"**:
	* Benchmark Definition: `[...(new Set([1,2,3,4,5,6,7]))]`
	* Purpose: This test case creates an array from a set of numbers using a different syntax (the spread operator).
3. **Test Case "c"**:
	* Benchmark Definition: `[1,2,3,4,5,6,7].filter((v, i, a) => a.indexOf(v) === i)`
	* Purpose: This test case filters an array of numbers based on the index of each element in the original array.

**Approaches Compared**

The three test cases compare different approaches to performing operations on arrays:

1. **Test Case "a"**: Creates an array from a set using `Array.from()`.
2. **Test Case "b"**: Creates an array from a set using the spread operator (`[...]`).
3. **Test Case "c"**: Filters an existing array using `filter()`.

**Pros and Cons**

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

1. **`Array.from()`**:
	* Pros: More concise, widely supported (modern browsers), and efficient.
	* Cons: May have performance issues for very large sets or arrays.
2. **Spread Operator (`[...]`)**:
	* Pros: More concise, modern syntax, and efficient for small to medium-sized datasets.
	* Cons: Less support in older browsers, potential performance issues for very large datasets.
3. **`filter()`**:
	* Pros: Widely supported (modern browsers), easy to implement, and suitable for filtering existing arrays.
	* Cons: May be slower than the other two approaches, especially for large datasets.

**Libraries Used**

None of the test cases use external libraries or frameworks that require special consideration. However, it's worth noting that `Set` and `Array.from()` are built-in JavaScript APIs, so no additional dependencies are required.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no specific JS features or syntax used in these test cases beyond the standard `filter()` method.

**Other Alternatives**

For measuring performance, other alternatives to MeasureThat.net include:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for Node.js.
2. **BenchmarkSuite**: A JavaScript framework for creating and running benchmarks.
3. **Google's Benchmark**: A C++ library used in Google's Chrome browser, also available as a JavaScript port.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on specific project requirements and constraints.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
a	6187255.0 Ops/sec
b	8719657.0 Ops/sec
c	22580094.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jkljkljkljlkjkljkjkljlk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b vs c

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

c

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):