Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
max-or-flat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
max vs flat
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
max
const series = [ { x: 'foo', y: [ 123, 234 ] }, { x: 'bar', y: [ 234, 123, 345 ] } ]; Math.max(...series.map(({ y }) => Math.max(...y)));
flat
const series = [ { x: 'foo', y: [ 123, 234 ] }, { x: 'bar', y: [ 234, 123, 345 ] } ]; Math.max(...series.map(({ y }) => y).flat());
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
max
flat
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark, "max-or-flat", consists of two individual test cases: "max" and "flat". The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of JavaScript's built-in `Math.max()` function with and without using the `flat()` method on arrays. **Options Compared** There are two approaches being compared: 1. **Flat Approach**: Using the `flat()` method on an array of arrays before passing it to `Math.max()`. This approach flattens the nested array structure, allowing `Math.max()` to operate on individual elements. 2. **No Flat Approach**: Passing the original nested array structure directly to `Math.max()`, without using the `flat()` method. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Flat Approach** * Pros: + Simplifies the benchmarking process by removing unnecessary nesting. + May provide a more accurate representation of real-world scenarios where arrays are flattened before processing. * Cons: + May introduce additional overhead due to the `flat()` method, which could affect performance. 2. **No Flat Approach** * Pros: + Avoids introducing extra overhead from the `flat()` method. * Cons: + Requires careful consideration of array nesting structures in real-world scenarios. **Library and Special JS Features** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. However, JavaScript's built-in functions like `Math.max()`, `map()`, and `flat()` are being used. No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** Alternative approaches to compare performance could include: * Using a different data structure, such as an object or set, instead of arrays. * Implementing the same logic using different programming paradigms (e.g., imperative vs. functional). * Testing different optimizations or heuristics for the `Math.max()` function. In terms of broader benchmarking strategies, alternatives could include: * Adding more test cases to cover various edge cases and real-world scenarios. * Incorporating additional performance metrics, such as memory usage or cache efficiency. * Using parallel testing to compare performance across multiple browsers, devices, or platforms.
Related benchmarks:
simple Math.max vs ternary
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test
Math.Max() vs Ternary
toFixed vs toPrecision vs bitwise 2
Clamping via min-max or ternary operator
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?