Benchmark: Pagination 11123f

Tests:

new
const offsetSize = 2; const offsetsSize = offsetSize * 2; const viewSize = offsetsSize + 1; const getPages = (current, pagesCount) => { const normalizedViewSize = viewSize < pagesCount ? viewSize : pagesCount; const viewEnd = current + offsetSize; const normalizedViewEnd = viewEnd < pagesCount ? viewEnd : pagesCount; const viewStart = normalizedViewEnd - normalizedViewSize + 1; const normalizedViewStart = viewStart > 0 ? viewStart : 1; const startPage = (current >= offsetsSize && [1]) || []; const startDots = (current > offsetsSize && ['dots']) || []; const pages = [...Array(normalizedViewSize)].map((_, i) => normalizedViewStart + i); const endDots = (viewEnd < pagesCount && ['dots']) || []; const endPage = (viewEnd <= pagesCount && [pagesCount]) || []; return [...startPage, ...startDots, ...pages, ...endDots, ...endPage]; }; getPages(1, 200);
old
const getPages = (current, pagesCount) => { let items = []; let start = current - 3; let end = current + 3; if (current === 5) items = [1]; if (current > 5) items = [1, 'dots']; if (start <= 1) start = 1; if (end > pagesCount) end = pagesCount; for (let i = start; i <= end; i++) { items.push(i); } if (end + 1 < pagesCount) { items = [...items, 'dots', pagesCount]; } else if (end < pagesCount) { items = [...items, pagesCount]; } return items; }; getPages(1, 200);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new
old

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.

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two different implementations of a pagination function in JavaScript, which is used to generate an array of page numbers for a given set of pages.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is simply a string that contains the code of the `getPages` function, which takes two arguments: `current` and `pagesCount`. The function returns an array of page numbers. In this case, there are two implementations:

1. **New implementation**: This implementation uses a more modern and concise syntax to calculate the start and end pages.
2. **Old implementation**: This implementation uses a more traditional and verbose approach to calculate the start and end pages.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two different implementations:

* **Algorithmic complexity**: The new implementation has a more efficient algorithm for calculating the start and end pages, which reduces the number of iterations required.
* **Syntax and structure**: The old implementation uses a more traditional syntax with multiple `if` statements, while the new implementation uses a more concise syntax with conditional expressions.

**Pros and Cons**

**New Implementation:**

Pros:

* More efficient algorithm
* Concise syntax
* Easier to maintain and update

Cons:

* May be less readable for those familiar with traditional syntax

**Old Implementation:**

Pros:

* More readable due to traditional syntax
* May be more familiar to those with experience in older JavaScript versions

Cons:

* Less efficient algorithm
* Verbose syntax
* More difficult to maintain and update

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly used in the benchmark code.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The new implementation uses:

* **Conditional expressions**: A concise way to express conditional logic using the `?:` operator.
* **Spread operator**: Used to create a new array by spreading elements from an existing array.
* **Template literals**: Not actually used, but it's worth mentioning that template literals are available in modern JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two implementations, consider the following:

* Performance: If performance is critical, the new implementation may be a better choice due to its more efficient algorithm.
* Code readability and maintainability: The old implementation may be easier to read and understand for those familiar with traditional syntax.
* Future-proofing: The new implementation uses modern JavaScript features that are likely to remain in use for future versions.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to implement a pagination function could include:

* Using an existing library, such as `lodash`, which provides a `paginate` function.
* Implementing a custom pagination algorithm using a different approach, such as using a queue data structure.
* Using a more high-level programming paradigm, such as functional programming, to simplify the implementation.

Related benchmarks:

Pagination 11123f (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new vs old

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new

old

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):