Benchmark: native-vs-js-methods-4

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(10000000).fill(null).map((item, idx) => {
  return {
    age: Math.floor(Math.random() * 100),
    id: (idx + 1)
  };
});

Tests:

js-methods
const filterData = arr.filter(item => { return item.age <= 50; }); const sumgeLessThanFifty = filterData.reduce((acc, item) => { acc += item.age; return acc; }, 0); console.log(sumgeLessThanFifty);
native
var sum = 0; arr.forEach(item => { var age = item.age; if(age <= 50) { sum += age; } }); console.log(sum);
native-for-loop
var sum = 0; var length = arr.length; for(var i = 0 ; i < length ; i++) { var age = arr[i].age; if(age <= 50) { sum += age; } } console.log(sum);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js-methods
native
native-for-loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmarking framework and explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of three approaches to calculate the sum of ages in an array where each object has an `age` property. The three approaches are:

1. Native JavaScript method (`js-methods`)
2. JavaScript loop (`native`)
3. For-loop iteration (`native-for-loop`)

**Options Comparison**

* **Native JavaScript Method (`js-methods`)**: This approach uses the built-in `filter()` and `reduce()` methods of JavaScript arrays.
	+ Pros:
		- Shorter code length
		- More concise and readable
		- Efficient use of native JavaScript functionality
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower performance due to method calls overhead
* **JavaScript Loop (`native`)**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array.
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster for large arrays due to fewer function calls
		- Control over iteration and indexing
	+ Cons:
		- Longer code length
		- More verbose and less readable
* **For-loop Iteration (`native-for-loop`)**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop with explicit indexing.
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster for large arrays due to fewer function calls
		- Control over iteration and indexing
	+ Cons:
		- Longer code length
		- More verbose and less readable

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

* **JavaScript Arrays**: The benchmark uses JavaScript arrays as the input data structure. This is a common choice for many JavaScript applications.
* **Native JavaScript Methods (`filter()` and `reduce()`)**: These methods are built into JavaScript and provide efficient ways to manipulate arrays. However, they may have slower performance due to method calls overhead.

**Special JS Feature**

There's no explicit mention of special JavaScript features like ES6 or ES7 syntax in the benchmark code. The code uses standard JavaScript features that are widely supported across most browsers.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches could be used to calculate the sum of ages in an array, such as:

* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for functional programming
* Using a custom implementation using bitwise operations (e.g., shifting and adding)
* Using parallel processing or multi-threading techniques

However, these alternatives may not be directly comparable to the native JavaScript methods used in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.106 Safari/537.36 Edg/80.0.361.56

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js-methods	3.3 Ops/sec
native	6.4 Ops/sec
native-for-loop	1.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

native-vs-js-methods-4 (version: 7)

Comparing performance of: js-methods vs native vs native-for-loop

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

js-methods

native

native-for-loop

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):