Benchmark: Split: Set size vs Every 2

Tests:

Set
const string = 'teste, teste, teste, teste' const split = string.split(','); const uniqueString = new Set(split); if (uniqueString.size === 1) { const uniqueStringResult = split[0]; }
Every
const string = 'teste, teste, teste, teste' const split = string.split(','); if (split.every((splitItem) => splitItem === split[0])) { const uniqueStringResult = split[0]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set
Every

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Set	6975116.0 Ops/sec
Every	18573202.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark being tested in this case compares the performance of two different approaches to determine whether all elements in a split string are the same. The methods being compared are using the **Set** object and the **every** array method. Let's break down each approach and its implications.

### Benchmark Overview

1. **Approach using `Set`:**
   - **Code:** `const split = string.split(','); const uniqueString = new Set(split); if (uniqueString.size === 1) { const uniqueStringResult = split[0]; }`
   - **Description:** This approach splits a string into an array of substrings using `split(',')`, then creates a new `Set` from the resulting array. Sets ensure all values are unique, meaning if all elements are the same, the size of the set will be 1.

**Pros:**
   - The `Set` collection automatically handles uniqueness, simplifying the logic required to determine if all elements are the same.
   - Can be efficient for larger datasets where you want to determine unique values quickly.

**Cons:**
   - Creating a `Set` is an additional overhead since it involves allocating memory for a new collection.
   - Might be slower for small arrays due to this overhead, despite its efficiency in determining unique values for larger arrays.

2. **Approach using `every`:**
   - **Code:** `const split = string.split(','); if (split.every((splitItem) => splitItem === split[0])) { const uniqueStringResult = split[0]; }`
   - **Description:** This method also starts with splitting the string into an array, but instead of creating a set, it checks if every item in the array is equal to the first element using the `every` method.

**Pros:**
   - The **`every`** method might be more straightforward in terms of logic because you're directly checking the condition you care about (uniformity among elements).
   - It can be more memory-efficient since it doesn't require creating an additional data structure — it processes the array in place.

**Cons:**
   - If the array is of significant size and contains many duplicates, it checks every element until a difference is found, which can lead to inefficiency in some cases.
   - If all elements are the same, it must iterate through the entire array to confirm the condition, which can be slower than using a `Set`.

### Performance Results

From the benchmark results:
- The *every* method registers **38,739,136 executions per second**.
- The *Set* method registers **7,825,019 executions per second**.

Clearly, the `every` method performs significantly better in this specific scenario, which is probably due to its lower overhead of not needing to instantiate a `Set`.

### Other Considerations

When deciding between these approaches, consider the following:
- **Array Size:** If you're dealing with small arrays, the performance differences might be negligible. However, for large datasets, the architecture of your solution may need to account for performance and memory constraints.
- **Code Readability:** Simplicity and readability often matter in team environments, so choosing the more straightforward approach should be balanced with performance.
- **Use Case Impact:** If the uniqueness check is a frequent operation with variable array sizes, you might favor one method over the other based on observed performance in your specific application context rather than solely on these benchmarks.

### Alternatives

There are alternative methods that were not tested here, such as:
- Using `reduce` to tally occurrences and determine if there is more than one unique string.
- Applying sorting and then checking if the first and last elements of the sorted array are the same (can be inefficient for large arrays due to sorting overhead).

Choosing the right method depends significantly on both performance needs and the specific use case, so engineers should benchmark their own solutions under realistic conditions to find the most suitable approach based on their unique requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Split: Set size vs Every 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set vs Every

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set

Every

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):