Benchmark: Qqqqqqqqq - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var as = [];
var as2 = [];
(function () {
  function A() {
    this.x = Math.random();
  }
  A.prototype.y = function (){};
  A.prototype.z = function (){};
  for (var i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
    var a = new A();
    as.push(a);
    if (a.x < 0.5) {
      as2.push(a);
    }
  }
})();

Tests:

1
function f1 (run) { for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { if (run.length && as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1) { as[i].y(); } else { as[i].z(); } } as = run.length ? as2 : as; }; f1([]); f1([1]);
2
function f2 (run) { if (run.length) { for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { if (as2.indexOf(as[1]) === -1) { as[i].y(); } } as = as2; } for (var i = 0; i < as.length; ++i) { as[i].z(); } }; f2([]); f2([1]);

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark definition. The main task is to iterate over an array of objects (`as`), perform some actions on each object, and compare different approaches to optimize the performance.

**Script Preparation Code**

This code prepares the environment for the benchmark by:

1. Creating two empty arrays: `as` and `as2`.
2. Defining a function `A` that has three methods: `y()`, `z()`, and a constructor.
3. Creating 10,000 instances of `A` and pushing them into both `as` and `as2`. If an instance's `x` property is less than 0.5, it's pushed into `as2`.

**Html Preparation Code**

This section is empty, which means that the benchmark doesn't rely on any HTML-related preparations.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**
The benchmark definition function `f1` takes an optional `run` parameter. It iterates over the `as` array and performs actions based on the presence of the `run` parameter:
	* If `run.length` is truthy, it checks if `as2.indexOf(as[0]) === -1`. If true, it calls `as[i].y()`, otherwise it calls `as[i].z()`.
	* It then updates the `as` array to be either `as2` or the original `as` array, depending on whether `run.length` is truthy.
2. **Test Case 2**
The benchmark definition function `f2` also takes an optional `run` parameter. The logic is similar to `f1`, but with some differences:
	* If `run.length` is truthy, it iterates over the `as` array and calls `as[i].y()` if `as2.indexOf(as[0]) === -1`.
	* It then updates the `as` array to be `as2`.

**Libraries and Features**

There are no explicitly mentioned libraries in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of `indexOf` and array methods like `push` and `length` suggests a reliance on the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is one notable aspect: the use of arrow functions (`=>`) and the fact that `as2.indexOf(as[0]) === -1` checks if an element is present in the array. This syntax is specific to ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and later versions.

**Other Considerations**

This benchmark appears to be designed to compare two different approaches:

* The original implementation (`f1`) that uses a conditional statement to determine which method to call on each object.
* An optimized version (`f2`) that uses an `if` statement with the same condition, but with slightly improved performance.

The test results show that the optimized version performs better than the original implementation.

**Alternatives**

If you were to recreate this benchmark, you might consider using:

1. A modern JavaScript framework or library like Jest, Mocha, or Cypress.
2. A microbenchmarking library like `benchmark` or `fast-bench`.
3. A simpler benchmarking approach, such as a simple loop that iterates over the array and performs actions on each element.

Keep in mind that this is just one possible way to recreate the benchmark, and you may need to modify it to suit your specific needs and testing requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Qqqqqqqqq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 9 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):