Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Fuck you Lumberjack Mirko
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
T1 vs T2
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function main(m, trees) { trees=trees.sort((a, b)=> b - a); ans=trees[0] while(trees.reduce((acc, el)=> {return el>ans ? acc+el-ans : acc}, 0) < m) {ans--} return ans }
Tests:
T1
main(7, [20,15,10,17])
T2
main(20, [4,42,40,26,46])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
T1
T2
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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of a JavaScript function, specifically the `main` function, which appears to be a simple optimization problem. The function takes two inputs: an integer `m` and an array of integers `trees`. The goal is to find the smallest element in the sorted array that exceeds `m`, and then iteratively subtract that value from `ans` until it no longer exceeds `m`. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares three different approaches: 1. **Brute Force**: This approach sorts the entire array and then uses a while loop to find the smallest element that exceeds `m`. The pros of this approach are straightforward: it's easy to understand and implement. * Cons: It has a high time complexity due to the sorting step, which can make it slow for large inputs. 2. **Binary Search**: This approach uses binary search to find the smallest element in the sorted array that exceeds `m`. The pros of this approach are its efficiency, as it reduces the search space by half at each iteration. * Cons: It requires a sorting step upfront, which can be slower than the brute force approach for very large inputs. 3. **Iterative Approach**: This approach uses an iterative algorithm to find the smallest element that exceeds `m`. The pros of this approach are its simplicity and potential speedup due to caching and loop unrolling. However, it's not explicitly stated how this approach works. **Library Used** The benchmark does not use any external libraries. However, it assumes the presence of a `sort` function in JavaScript, which is part of the standard library. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark. The code appears to be straightforward and follows conventional JavaScript syntax. **Other Alternatives** If you want to optimize this benchmark for performance, here are some alternative approaches: 1. **Caching**: You could cache the results of previous sorts and searches to avoid repeating them. 2. **Parallel Processing**: If you have a multi-core processor, you could use parallel processing to sort the array in parallel with multiple threads or processes. 3. **Custom Algorithm**: Depending on the specific requirements of the problem, you might be able to find an optimized algorithm that doesn't rely on sorting or binary search. In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance of a JavaScript function that solves an optimization problem using three different approaches: brute force, binary search, and an iterative approach. The pros and cons of each approach are discussed above.
Related benchmarks:
Javascript Sorting Algorithms
Sorting algorithms comparison (source: https://www.measurethat.net/Benchmarks/Show/3549/0/javascript
Javascript Sorting Algorithms My Algo Test
Javascript Sorting Algorithmzzz
Javascript Sorting Algorithms large
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?