Benchmark: successive ratios comparison

Script Preparation code:

function successiveRatios(arr = []) {
    return arr.reduce((ret, item, i) => {
        if (i + 1 >= arr.length) return ret;
        let successiveRatio;

        if(arr[i] === 0) {
            successiveRatio = 0
        } else {
            successiveRatio = arr[i + 1] / arr[i];
        }

        return [...ret, successiveRatio];
    }, []);
}

function successiveRatios2(arr = []) {
    const ret = [];

  	for(let i=0; i<arr.length - 1; i++) {
        if(arr[i] === 0) {
            ret.push(0);
        } else {
            ret.push(arr[i + 1] / arr[i]);
        }
    }

  	return ret;
}

Tests:

1
successiveRatios([1, 2, 3, 4]);
2
successiveRatios2([1, 2, 3, 4]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to help understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains two functions: `successiveRatios` and `successiveRatios2`. These functions are used to calculate the successive ratios of consecutive elements in an array.

```javascript
function successiveRatios(arr = []) {
    return arr.reduce((ret, item, i) => {
        if (i + 1 >= arr.length) return ret;
        let successiveRatio;

if (arr[i] === 0) {
            successiveRatio = 0;
        } else {
            successiveRatio = arr[i + 1] / arr[i];
        }

return [...ret, successiveRatio];
    }, []);
}

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches to calculate successive ratios:

1. `successiveRatios`: This function uses the `reduce()` method to iterate through the array and calculates the successive ratio between each pair of elements.
2. `successiveRatios2`: This function uses a `for` loop to iterate through the array and calculates the successive ratio between each pair of elements.

**Pros and Cons**

1. `successiveRatios`:
	* Pros: More concise and elegant code, as it leverages the power of functional programming with `reduce()`.
	* Cons: May have higher overhead due to the use of `reduce()` and array iteration.
2. `successiveRatios2`:
	* Pros: Lower overhead due to the use of a simple `for` loop, which can be optimized by the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons: More verbose code, as it requires explicit looping.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, both functions are using built-in JavaScript methods and data structures (e.g., arrays, loops).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark definition uses a feature of modern JavaScript called "arrow functions" (`=>`), which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for concise function definitions.

Other considerations:

* Both functions have a time complexity of O(n), where n is the length of the input array.
* The `successiveRatios` function uses an initial value of an empty array (`[]`) as its accumulator, while `successiveRatios2` initializes an empty array (`const ret = []`) to store the results.

**Alternative Implementations**

If you wanted to implement these functions differently, you could consider using:

1. Iterators or generators instead of `for` loops.
2. Looping constructs like `while` loops or recursion for calculating successive ratios.
3. Libraries like Lodash or Ramda that provide utility functions for array operations.

However, the current implementation is a good starting point, as it showcases both concise and traditional approaches to solving this problem.

Related benchmarks:

successive ratios comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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