Benchmark: test for loop 1 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<div id=''></div>

Tests:

test 2
let ddd = [ { _id: 'Completed', count: 5, color: '#60C121', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'No Action', count: 3, color: '#EB3434', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Ongoing', count: 6, color: '#10B1B1', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Pending', count: 1, color: '#7084F3', percentage: 0, }, ]; let da = [ { _id: 'Completed', count: 0, color: '#60C121', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'No Action', count: 0, color: '#EB3434', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Ongoing', count: 0, color: '#10B1B1', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Pending', count: 0, color: '#7084F3', percentage: 0, }, ]; const aa = () => { ddd.forEach(element => { let index = da.findIndex(val => element._id === val._id); da[index] = element; }); console.log(da); }; aa()
tes1
let ddd = [ { _id: 'Completed', count: 5, color: '#60C121', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'No Action', count: 3, color: '#EB3434', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Ongoing', count: 6, color: '#10B1B1', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Pending', count: 1, color: '#7084F3', percentage: 0, }, ]; let da = [ { _id: 'Completed', count: 0, color: '#60C121', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'No Action', count: 0, color: '#EB3434', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Ongoing', count: 0, color: '#10B1B1', percentage: 0, }, { _id: 'Pending', count: 0, color: '#7084F3', percentage: 0, }, ]; const aa = () => { ddd.forEach(element => { let index = da.findIndex(val => element._id === val._id); da[index] = element; }); console.log(da); }; aa()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test 2
tes1

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.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which consists of:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark (e.g., "test for loop 1").
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: Optional code that is executed before running the benchmark. In this case, it's empty.
* `Html Preparation Code`: HTML code that is used to create a container for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of:

* `Benchmark Definition`: A JavaScript code snippet that defines the benchmark. The code uses two arrays, `ddd` and `da`, which contain objects with similar properties. The code then uses the `forEach` method to iterate over `ddd` and find the corresponding element in `da`.
* `Test Name`: A unique name for the test case.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript's `forEach` method, specifically when using `findIndex` to find an element in an array. The code snippet creates two arrays with similar objects and then iterates over the first array using `forEach`. For each iteration, it finds the corresponding element in the second array using `findIndex`.

**Options compared**

There are two test cases that use different approaches:

1. Test Case 1: Uses a simple `for` loop to iterate over the `ddd` array.
2. Test Case 2: Uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the `ddd` array, which is the same approach as Test Case 1.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

Both approaches have similar performance characteristics, but there are some differences:

* **For loop**: This approach uses an explicit loop variable (`i`) and can be slightly faster due to its simplicity.
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons: More verbose, less readable.
* **forEach**: This approach uses a callback function that is executed for each iteration.
	+ Pros: More concise, easier to read.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of the callback function.

**Library usage**

Neither test case explicitly uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Google Chrome), have built-in optimizations for certain algorithms and data structures.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax used in these benchmark cases. The code snippets are standard JavaScript and do not employ any advanced features like async/await, promise chains, or arrow functions.

**Alternatives**

If you want to test other aspects of JavaScript performance, you could consider the following alternatives:

* Test the performance of different array methods, such as `map`, `filter`, or `reduce`.
* Compare the performance of different data structures, like arrays vs. objects.
* Test the impact of caching or memoization on benchmark results.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmarking process!

Related benchmarks:

test for loop 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test 2 vs tes1

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test 2

tes1

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):