Benchmark: Test perfomance - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = Array(1000).fill().map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 100));
var arr2 = Array(1000).fill().map(() => Math.round(Math.random() * 100));

Tests:

Test reduce
const fn = (arr1, arr2) => { return arr2.reduce((acc, item) => { if (arr1.includes(item) && !acc.includes(item)) { acc.push(item); } return acc; }, []); }; fn(arr1, arr2)
Test 2
const fn = (arr1, arr2) => { return Array.from(new Set(arr2.filter((item) => arr1.includes(item)))); }; fn(arr1, arr2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test reduce
Test 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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze the provided benchmark definition.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring performance in JavaScript. The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Test reduce**: This test case measures the performance of a function that uses the `reduce` method to filter an array based on whether each element is present in another array.
2. **Test 2**: This test case measures the performance of a function that uses the `Set` data structure and the `filter` method to achieve similar filtering, but with a different approach.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Using `reduce`**: The first test case (Test reduce) uses the `reduce` method to filter the array.
2. **Using `Set` and `filter`**: The second test case (Test 2) uses a `Set` data structure and the `filter` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `reduce`**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, concise code.
	* Cons: Can be less efficient for large datasets due to the overhead of the `reduce` method.
2. **Using `Set` and `filter`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of the `reduce` method.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new data structure (the Set), which can lead to higher memory usage.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of the `Array.from()` method is specific to modern JavaScript versions, and its implementation may vary depending on the browser or engine used.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature common in modern JavaScript: **Template Literals (`\r\n`)**, which allows for easier formatting of code. This syntax is widely supported across browsers and engines.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to implement similar filtering algorithms, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Using `forEach` and `includes`**: You can use a simple loop with `forEach` and `includes` methods to filter the array.
2. **Using regular expressions**: If the data is mostly numeric or can be represented as strings, you might be able to achieve filtering using regular expressions.

**Code Review**

The provided code preparation scripts are clear and concise. However, it's essential to note that the `fill()` method used in the script creation might not be suitable for all browsers (e.g., older versions of Internet Explorer). You may want to consider alternative approaches for ensuring compatibility across different environments.

In conclusion, this benchmark definition provides a useful comparison between two filtering approaches using JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach and considering alternative methods, you can make informed decisions about optimizing your code for better performance.

Related benchmarks:

Test perfomance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test reduce vs Test 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test reduce

Test 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):