Benchmark: filter vs loop simple comparison

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [1, 2, 3]

Tests:

Loop
const finalData = []; for (let index = 0; index < arr.length; index += 1) { if (index !== 0) finalData.push(arr[index]); }
Filter
const finalData = arr.filter((val, index) => { if (index === 0) return false; else return true });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Loop
Filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JavaScript features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `for` loop and using the `filter()` method in JavaScript. The input data is an array `arr` with three elements.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Loop**: A traditional `for` loop that iterates through the array, skipping the first element (`index !== 0`) and pushing each subsequent element to a new array `finalData`.
2. **Filter**: The `filter()` method, which creates a new array with all elements that pass a test (in this case, not equal to zero).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Loop**:
	* Pros: Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with loops, allows for easier control over iteration.
	* Cons: Requires manual index management, can lead to errors if the loop condition is incorrect.
2. **Filter**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive, eliminates the need for manual index management.
	* Cons: May incur a performance overhead due to the creation of a new array.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use external libraries.

**Special JavaScript Features**

The `filter()` method uses an arrow function (`(val, index) => { ... }`) which is a shorthand way of defining functions. This feature allows for concise and expressive code.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Memory Allocation**: Both approaches allocate memory for the `finalData` array. However, in the loop approach, this allocation happens on each iteration, while in the filter approach, it happens only once.
2. **Cache Performance**: Modern browsers have caching mechanisms that can affect performance. The filter approach might benefit from cache hits since it accesses elements in sequence.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to compare could be:

* Using a `map()` function instead of `filter()`
* Using a library like Lodash's `compact()` or `_without` functions
* Using a JavaScript engine-specific optimization (e.g., WebAssembly)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide a direct comparison with the provided benchmark definitions.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
```
This creates an array `arr` to serve as input for both test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Loop**: The first test case uses a traditional `for` loop to create the `finalData` array.
```javascript
const finalData = [];
for (let index = 0; index < arr.length; index += 1) {
  if (index !== 0) finalData.push(arr[index]);
}
```
2. **Filter**: The second test case uses the `filter()` method to create the `finalData` array.
```javascript
const finalData = arr.filter((val, index) => {
  if (index === 0) return false;
  else return true;
});
```
Note that both test cases use a similar pattern for constructing the `finalData` array. However, the loop approach is more explicit and requires manual index management, while the filter approach is more concise and expressive.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Loop	2191997.0 Ops/sec
Filter	10675804.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

filter vs loop simple comparison (version: 0)

how faster is loop vs filter.

Comparing performance of: Loop vs Filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Loop

Filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):