Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
blahasdas
(version: 0)
blah
Comparing performance of:
nested vs combined
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var data = []; for (var i=0; i<100000; i++) { data.push([Math.floor(Math.random()*10)/10, Math.floor(Math.random()*10)/10, Math.floor(Math.random()*10)/10]); }
Tests:
nested
var ret = {}; for (var i=0; i<data.length; i++) { var d = data[i]; ret[d[0]] = ret[d[0]] || {}; ret[d[0]][d[1]] = ret[d[0]][d[1]] || {}; ret[d[0]][d[1]][d[2]] = true; }
combined
var ret = {}; for (var i=0; i<data.length; i++) { var d = data[i]; ret[d[0]+","+d[1]+","+d[2]] = true; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
nested
combined
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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net, a platform that enables users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases: "nested" and "combined". A benchmark is a set of code that measures the performance of a specific piece of functionality. In this case, we have two test cases: 1. **Nested**: This test case creates an object `ret` and iterates over an array `data` containing 100,000 elements. For each element, it checks if the corresponding key exists in the `ret` object and, if not, creates a new nested object. 2. **Combined**: This test case is similar to the "nested" test case but uses a single string as the key instead of creating a nested object. **Options Compared** The two test cases differ in how they access and manipulate the `data` array: 1. **Nested**: Uses an iterative approach with three nested objects (`ret[d[0]][d[1]][d[2]] = true;`) to create the object hierarchy. 2. **Combined**: Uses a single string concatenation (`ret[d[0]+\",\"+d[1]+\",\"+d[2]] = true;`) to access and manipulate the `data` array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: * **Nested**: + Pros: More explicit control over object creation, potentially better cache locality. + Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the need to create multiple objects, as well as more memory usage. * **Combined**: + Pros: Faster execution time, reduced memory usage, and potentially better cache locality due to the single string concatenation. + Cons: Less explicit control over object creation, may lead to issues with string manipulation and key collisions. **Library and Purpose** In both test cases, there is no explicit library or framework mentioned. However, some assumptions can be made: * The `data` array is likely a JavaScript built-in data structure (e.g., an array). * The `ret` object is also a JavaScript object. * No external libraries are used to create the object hierarchy. **Special JS Features and Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. However, some notable mentions include: * **Object literals**: Used to create objects like `var ret = {}`. * **Array iteration**: Used to iterate over the `data` array using a `for` loop. * **String concatenation**: Used in both test cases for string manipulation. **Other Alternatives** If you want to optimize or modify these benchmarking test cases, here are some potential alternatives: 1. Use a more efficient data structure, such as a Map or an Object with sparse properties. 2. Utilize JavaScript's built-in caching mechanisms (e.g., `WeakMap`) for better object creation performance. 3. Experiment with different iteration approaches, like using `for...of` loops or recursion. 4. Consider parallelizing the benchmarking process to take advantage of multi-core processors. Keep in mind that any modifications should be thoroughly tested to ensure they do not introduce unintended performance regressions or other issues.
Related benchmarks:
slice test
Labels
Negative precision floor: Lodash vs Math.floor
Set.has v.s Array.includes
yoooooo
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?