Benchmark: nested Array.filter Array.some vs filtering a set

Tests:

Nester Array.filter Array.some
const microblinkRetailers = [ {name: 'amz'}, {name: 'trgt'}, {name: 'wlmrt'}, {name: 'xyz'} ] const localRetailers = ['amz'] const pendingRetailers = (microblinkRetailers || []) .filter(retailer => !localRetailers.some(merchantName => merchantName === retailer.name) );
use set
const microblinkRetailers = [ {name: 'amz'}, {name: 'trgt'}, {name: 'wlmrt'}, {name: 'xyz'} ] const localRetailers = ['amz'] const s = new Set(localRetailers); const pendingRetailers = microblinkRetailers.filter(x => !s.has(x.name));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Nester Array.filter Array.some
use set

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to filter an array of objects: using the `Array.prototype.filter()` method with `Array.prototype.some()`, and using a `Set` data structure.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Nested Array.prototype.filter() + Array.prototype.some()**: This approach uses the `filter()` method on the `microblinkRetailers` array, which returns a new array with elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function (in this case, the `some()` method). The `some()` method checks if any element in the `localRetailers` array matches the `name` property of an object in the filtered array.
2. **Use Set**: This approach uses a `Set` data structure to store the `localRetailers` array elements, and then filters the `microblinkRetailers` array using a callback function that checks if each element's `name` property is not present in the set.

**Pros and Cons**

### Nested Array.prototype.filter() + Array.prototype.some()

Pros:

* This approach is concise and easy to read.
* It uses built-in JavaScript methods, which are likely to be optimized by engines.

Cons:

* The use of `some()` can lead to slower performance if there are many matches, as it needs to check each element in the array.
* The generated code may not be as efficient as a direct lookup in a set.

### Use Set

Pros:

* This approach uses a data structure optimized for fast lookups (in O(1) time complexity).
* It avoids the need for `some()` and can lead to better performance, especially if there are many matches.

Cons:

* The code is slightly more verbose than the nested filter approach.
* Creating a set requires an initial allocation of memory.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that `Set` is a built-in JavaScript data structure.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, here are some alternatives:

1. **Use Array.prototype.reduce()**: Instead of using `filter()` and `some()`, you could use `reduce()` to filter the array.
2. **Use a Map data structure**: Similar to using a set for lookups, you could also use a map to store the local retailers' names for fast lookups.
3. **Use a custom lookup function**: You could implement your own lookup function using a hash table or other optimized data structures.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or concise as the original approaches, but they demonstrate different ways to solve the same problem.

Related benchmarks:

nested Array.filter Array.some vs filtering a set (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Nester Array.filter Array.some vs use set

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Nester Array.filter Array.some

use set

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):