Benchmark: filter with Boolean

HTML Preparation code:


<div id=''></div>

Script Preparation code:

let a = new Array(999999).fill(100)
function testGog(arr){
    console.time();
    a.filter(i => !!i);
    console.timeEnd();
}
testGog(a)

Tests:

test filter with Boolean
let a = new Array(999999).fill(100) function testGog(arr){ console.time(); a.filter(Boolean); console.timeEnd(); } testGog(a)
without boolean
let a = new Array(999999).fill(100) function testGog(arr){ console.time(); a.filter(i => !!i); console.timeEnd(); } testGog(a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test filter with Boolean
without boolean

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'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark and its different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript's filter method when filtering an array of numbers. The benchmark has two test cases:

1. "filter with Boolean": This test case uses the `Boolean()` function as the callback in the `Array.prototype.filter()` method.
2. "without boolean": This test case omits the `Boolean()` function and instead uses a simple conditional expression (`i => !!i`) as the callback.

**Comparison of Options**

The two test cases compare the performance of using the `Boolean()` function versus omitting it from the filter callback. Here's what's being tested:

* Using `Boolean()` as the callback in `Array.prototype.filter()`: This approach creates a new Boolean object each time, which may incur additional overhead due to the creation and destruction of objects.
* Omitting `Boolean()` from the filter callback: By using a simple conditional expression (`i => !!i`), this approach avoids creating an additional object. However, it relies on the fact that the expression will always evaluate to true for non-zero numbers (since `!!` converts 0 to false). If this assumption is incorrect, the performance may degrade.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using `Boolean()` as the callback:**
	+ Pros:
		- Clearer intent and more explicit code.
	+ Cons:
		- Additional object creation overhead due to `Boolean()`.
* **Omitting `Boolean()` from the filter callback:**
	+ Pros:
		- Reduced overhead due to fewer objects created.
	+ Cons:
		- Assumption about conditional expression behavior may not hold.

**Library and Its Purpose**

None of the provided benchmark code uses any external libraries. The JavaScript standard library is sufficient for this simple use case.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward test of two different approaches to filtering an array using `Array.prototype.filter()`.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives for testing the performance of JavaScript's filter method might include:

* Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of `Array.prototype.filter()`
* Using a different data structure, such as a Set or an object with custom key-value pairs
* Adding additional computations to the filter callback (e.g., multiplying each element by a constant)

These alternative approaches could help test different aspects of JavaScript's performance and optimization strategies.

Related benchmarks:

filter with Boolean (version: 0)

filter with Boolean

Comparing performance of: test filter with Boolean vs without boolean

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

test filter with Boolean

without boolean

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):