Benchmark: testtest - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var x = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'g', 'a', 'c', 'l', 't', 'f', 'e', 'c', 'd', 't', 'h', 'a', 'y', 'l'];

Tests:

dedup1
var y = []; var z = []; for (var i = x.length; i--;) { if (!z.includes(x[i])) z[i] = x[i]; } for (var i = z.length; i--;) y[i] = z[i];
dedup2
var y = []; for (var i = 0, l = x.length; i < l; i++) { if (!y.includes(x[i])) y.push([i]); }
dedup3
var y = []; x.forEach(function(i) { if (!y.includes(x[i])) y.push([i]); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
dedup1
dedup2
dedup3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition**
The first part of the JSON data represents a benchmark definition. It includes:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "testtest".
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark, which is also "test". This information helps users understand what the benchmark is testing.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that prepares the data for the benchmark. In this case, it defines an array `x` with 20 elements and then creates two empty arrays `y` and `z`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating that no HTML preparation is required.

**Individual Test Cases**
The second part of the JSON data consists of three individual test cases:

1. **dedup1**: This benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that:
	* Iterates over the array `x` from the beginning to the end.
	* For each element, checks if it's not already included in the array `z`.
	* If not, adds the element to `z`.
	* Finally, copies the elements of `z` to an empty array `y`.
2. **dedup2**: This benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that:
	* Initializes two empty arrays `y` and `z`.
	* Iterates over the array `x` using a `for` loop.
	* For each element, checks if it's not already included in the array `y`.
	* If not, adds an index `[i]` to the end of `y`.
3. **dedup3**: This benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that:
	* Iterates over the array `x` using the `forEach()` method.
	* For each element, checks if it's not already included in the array `y`.
	* If not, adds an index `[i]` to the end of `y`.

**Comparison**
The three benchmark definitions compare different approaches for removing duplicates from an array:

1. **dedup1**: Iterates over the array using a traditional `for` loop and checks for duplicates in `z` before copying to `y`.
2. **dedup2**: Uses a `for` loop with an index variable `[i]`, but doesn't check for duplicates within the loop; instead, it adds only unique elements to `y`.
3. **dedup3**: Uses the `forEach()` method and checks for duplicates directly in the callback function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **dedup1**:
	+ Pros: Checks for duplicates before copying to `y`, ensuring uniqueness.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to extra loop iterations and array indexing.
* **dedup2**:
	+ Pros: Faster iteration, as it doesn't require checking for duplicates within the loop.
	+ Cons: Doesn't guarantee uniqueness, as duplicate elements might still be added to `y`.
* **dedup3**:
	+ Pros: Convenient use of `forEach()` and built-in array methods; ensures uniqueness by using the callback function.
	+ Cons: May have performance issues due to the overhead of iterating over each element in `x`.

**Other Considerations**

When running these benchmark tests, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Array size and complexity
* Browser versions and platforms
* CPU architecture and number of cores
* JavaScript engine optimizations

**Alternatives**
To test similar benchmarks or explore alternative approaches, you can consider the following options:

1. Use built-in array methods like `Set` or `Map` for duplicate removal.
2. Experiment with different iteration patterns, such as using `every()` or `some()` instead of traditional loops.
3. Compare performance with other programming languages or frameworks (e.g., Python, Java).
4. Analyze the generated machine code to understand the optimizations used by each JavaScript engine.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce new challenges and complexities, but can also provide valuable insights into performance and optimization techniques.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 54 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
dedup1	131899.3 Ops/sec
dedup2	200158.2 Ops/sec
dedup3	103198.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testtest (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: dedup1 vs dedup2 vs dedup3

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

dedup1

dedup2

dedup3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):