Benchmark: WHatever - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

1

Tests:

2
const arr = [{ id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 1}, {id: 2}]; const uniqs = []; const map = new Map(); for (const item of arr) { if (!map.has(item.id)) { map.set(item.id, item.id); uniqs.push(item); } } console.log(uniqs);
1
const arr = [{ id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 1}, {id: 2}]; const uniqs = []; const map = new Map(); for (const item of arr) { if (!map.has(item.id)) { map.set(item.id, item.id); uniqs.push(item); } } console.log(uniqs);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
2
1

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 explain the benchmark that's being measured.

The provided JSON represents two test cases that are being compared to determine which approach is more efficient in removing duplicates from an array while preserving unique elements. The array contains objects with an `id` property, and the goal is to collect only the unique `id`s and their corresponding values.

Here are the options being compared:

**Approach 1:** Using a JavaScript `Map` data structure to store unique values.

Pros:

* Efficient use of memory, as it uses hashing to store unique values.
* Fast lookups and insertions.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for very large datasets due to potential memory constraints.

**Approach 2:** Iterating through the array using a `for...of` loop and checking if each value is already present in an external data structure (in this case, the `Map` instance).

Pros:

* Suitable for large datasets as it doesn't require additional memory.
* Easy to implement and understand.

Cons:

* May be slower than Approach 1 due to the iteration and lookup operations.

Both approaches use a similar logic: iterate through the array, check if each value is present in the external data structure (in this case, the `Map`), and if not, add it to the result collection.

The test cases are identical, but they differ only in their order. The first test case executes Approach 1 (using a `Map`), while the second test case executes Approach 2 (iterating through the array).

Now, let's discuss some special JavaScript features:

* In the benchmark code, the line `const arr = [...];` is using a modern feature called "spread syntax" to create an array from individual elements. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).
* The line `for (const item of arr)` is using a feature called "for...of loops", which allows iterating through arrays and other iterable objects.

The `Map` data structure is not specific to JavaScript; it's part of the ECMAScript standard, but it was introduced in ES6. It's a built-in object that stores key-value pairs and provides efficient lookup, insertion, and deletion operations.

The benchmark result shows two execution counts for each test case, which indicates that both approaches take similar amounts of time to execute. However, without knowing the actual values being tested or the specific hardware configuration, it's difficult to determine which approach is more efficient in general.

Other alternatives to compare would be:

* Using other data structures like a `Set` (which only stores unique values and doesn't preserve order) or an array.
* Implementing a custom duplicate-removal algorithm using bitwise operations or other techniques.
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines, browsers, or versions.

Related benchmarks:

WHatever (version: 0)

gdfg

Comparing performance of: 2 vs 1

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

2

1

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):