Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
testingggs3
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
da vs daf
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = ['2','3','4','5','6','7']; var j = '3'
Tests:
da
a.includes(j)
daf
a[0] === j || a[1] === j || a[2] === j || a[3] === j || a[4] === j || a[5] === j
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
da
daf
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):
**Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark consists of two individual test cases, each measuring the performance of a specific JavaScript expression. **Test Case 1: `a.includes(j)`** * **Description**: This test case measures the performance of the `includes()` method when searching for a value in an array. * **Options compared**: In this case, there is only one option being tested: `a.includes(j)`. * **Pros and Cons**: + Pros: - Simple to implement and understand. - Well-supported by modern JavaScript engines. + Cons: - May not be the most efficient method for large arrays or complex searches. **Test Case 2: `a[0] === j || a[1] === j || a[2] === j || a[3] === j || a[4] === j || a[5] === j`** * **Description**: This test case measures the performance of a nested loop comparison when searching for an exact match in an array. * **Options compared**: In this case, there is only one option being tested: the nested loop comparison. * **Pros and Cons**: + Pros: - Can be more efficient than using `includes()` for large arrays or exact matches. + Cons: - More complex to implement and understand. - May not be as widely supported by modern JavaScript engines. **Library Usage** In the provided JSON, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash provide optimized implementations of `includes()` and other array methods. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these test cases. The expressions are simple and straightforward. **Alternative Approaches** Other approaches to measuring the performance of this expression could include: * Using a more advanced data structure, such as a Set or a Map. * Implementing the `includes()` method from scratch using bitwise operations. * Using a parallel processing approach to compare the two options. Some alternatives for testing the nested loop comparison could be: * Using a different data structure, such as an array of objects or a linked list. * Implementing the loop comparison using a more efficient algorithm, such as a Boyer-Moore string search. * Using a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the performance of the nested loop comparison. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be relevant for this specific benchmark and may require significant changes to the test code.
Related benchmarks:
test123123121321
My Benchmark
lodash concat test
next test
! x !!!
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?