Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
swap test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
2017 swap vs 1824 swap vs third arg swap
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
2017 swap
let swap = ([a, b]) => [b, a]; let inArr = [5, 7]; let outArr = swap(inArr); console.log(outArr[0], outArr[1]);
1824 swap
let inA = 5; let inB = 7; inA ^= inB; inB ^= inA; inA ^= inB;
third arg swap
let inA = 5; let inB = 7; let inC; inC = inA; inA = inB; inB = inC;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
2017 swap
1824 swap
third arg swap
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 fascinating platform for JavaScript microbenchmarks. **What is tested on the provided JSON?** The provided JSON represents three test cases, each with a unique approach to implementing a simple swap function in JavaScript. The test cases measure the performance of these approaches across different browsers and devices. **Options compared:** 1. **Simple assignment**: `let swap = ([a, b]) => [b, a];` (Test case 1) 2. **XOR swap**: `inA ^= inB; inB ^= inA; inA ^= inB;` (Test case 2) 3. **Three-argument swap**: `inC = inA; inA = inB; inB = inC;` (Test case 3) **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **Simple assignment**: * Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation. * Cons: May be slower due to the creation of a new array, which can lead to additional memory allocations and garbage collection overhead. 2. **XOR swap**: * Pros: Efficient use of bitwise operations, which can be faster than simple arithmetic or array assignments. * Cons: Less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with XOR swaps. 3. **Three-argument swap**: * Pros: Simple and elegant implementation that avoids the need to create a new array. * Cons: May require more CPU cycles due to the use of assignment operations. **Library usage (if applicable)** None of the provided test cases rely on any external libraries. **Special JS features or syntax** None of the test cases explicitly utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax. They appear to be straightforward implementations of basic swapping logic. Now, let's talk about other alternatives for implementing a simple swap function in JavaScript: 1. **Splice**: `let swappedArray = [5, 7];[swappedArray[0], swappedArray[1]] = [swappedArray[1], swappedArray[0]];` 2. **Destructuring assignment**: `let {a, b} = {a: 5, b: 7}; let swappedArray = [a, b]; [swappedArray[0], swappedArray[1]] = [swappedArray[1], swappedArray[0]];` These alternatives are not tested in the provided benchmark results. **Other considerations** When choosing an implementation approach for a simple swap function, consider the following factors: * Performance: Measured execution times may vary depending on the specific use case and environment. * Readability: Simplicity and maintainability of code are crucial when it comes to swapping logic. * Memory usage: Be mindful of potential memory allocations or deallocations, especially in cases where arrays need to be created. In conclusion, MeasureThat.net provides a valuable platform for comparing performance metrics across different JavaScript implementations. By examining the provided benchmark results, developers can gain insights into the efficiency and practicality of various swap function approaches.
Related benchmarks:
swap test
swap test
TEST SWAP FUNC
【JiangNanGame】traditional swap vs destructuring assignment swap
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?