Benchmark: Test463575637 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Tererer4
const objects = [ { id: 1, name: "Test 1", object_type: 1 }, { id: 2, name: "Test 2", object_type: 1 }, { id: 3, name: "Test 3", object_type: 2 }, { id: 4, name: "Test 4", object_type: 3 }, ] const object_types = [ { id: 1, class: "Устройства" }, { id: 2, class: "Устройства" }, { id: 3, class: "Порты" }, { id: 4, class: "Кабели" } ] const className = "Устройства"; function result (objects, object_types, className) { const filterObjectForClass = object_types .filter(item => item.class === className) const res = objects .filter(item => { const matchElem = filterObjectForClass.find(elem => elem.id === item.object_type); return matchElem && item.object_type === matchElem.id }) .map(item => item.name) .join() return res; } result(objects,object_types,className);
ergrtrthryh
const objects = [ { id: 1, name: "Test 1", object_type: 1 }, { id: 2, name: "Test 2", object_type: 1 }, { id: 3, name: "Test 3", object_type: 2 }, { id: 4, name: "Test 4", object_type: 3 }, ] const object_types = [ { id: 1, class: "Устройства" }, { id: 2, class: "Устройства" }, { id: 3, class: "Порты" }, { id: 4, class: "Кабели" } ] const className = "Устройства"; function result (objects, object_types, className) { const arr = [] for (let i = 0; i < object_types.length; i++) { if (object_types.class === className) { arr.push(object_types.id) } } const filterObjectForClass = new Set(arr); let result = ''; objects.forEach(item => { if (filterObjectForClass.has(item.object_type)) { result += item.name + ','; } }) return result; } result(objects,object_types,className);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Tererer4
ergrtrthryh

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.7.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 24 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Tererer4	3004112.2 Ops/sec
ergrtrthryh	3185890.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform for testing and comparing the performance of JavaScript code on different browsers, devices, and operating systems.

The provided benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. "Tererer4"
2. "ergrtrthryh"

Both tests involve filtering an array of objects based on their class name.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition includes the following elements:

* **Script Preparation Code**: None (empty string)
* **Html Preparation Code**: None (empty string)
* **Benchmark Definition**: A JavaScript function that takes three parameters: `objects`, `object_types`, and `className`. The function filters the objects based on their class name and returns a concatenated string of names.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches to filtering the objects:

1. **First Approach (Tererer4)**:
	* Uses the `filter()` method to filter objects based on their class name.
	* Uses the `map()` method to concatenate the filtered object names into a string.
	* Returns the concatenated string of object names.
2. **Second Approach (ergrtrthryh)**:
	* Creates an array of IDs that match the specified class name using a `for` loop.
	* Converts the array to a Set for efficient lookup.
	* Iterates through the original objects array and concatenates the names of objects with matching IDs.

**Pros and Cons**

**First Approach (Tererer4)**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Uses built-in Array methods, which are typically optimized for performance

Cons:

* May have poor cache locality due to repeated `filter()` calls

**Second Approach (ergrtrthryh)**

Pros:

* Can take advantage of Set operations' efficient lookup and caching
* Avoids the overhead of repeated `filter()` calls

Cons:

* More complex code with a separate array creation step
* May have slower startup times due to the additional computation

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches have similar execution time profiles, suggesting that the difference in performance is likely due to the specifics of the implementation rather than the underlying algorithm.
* The use of `filter()` and `map()` methods in the first approach provides a clear and concise implementation that is easy to understand and maintain.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other possible approaches could include:

* Using a single pass through the objects array with a custom loop or iterator
* Utilizing a dedicated library or framework for efficient object filtering (e.g., Lodash)
* Implementing a hybrid approach that combines elements of both methods

However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark implementation and may not yield substantial performance benefits.

Related benchmarks:

Test463575637 (version: 0)

fer45y55g5

Comparing performance of: Tererer4 vs ergrtrthryh

Created: 2 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Tererer4

ergrtrthryh

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):