Benchmark: Test_every - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array_1 = [{id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 3}, {id: 4}, {id: 5}];
var array_2 = [{id: 6}, {id: 7}, {id: 8}];
var array_3 = [{id: 9}, {id: 10}, {id: 11}, {id: 12}, {id: 13}];

var ids_to_check = [1, 5, 8, 6, 11, 3];

Tests:

test_1
var joined_array = [ array_1, array_2, array_3, ] var counter = 0; joined_array.every(array => { array.every(object => { if (ids_to_check.includes(object.id)) { counter++; } return counter >= ids_to_check.length; }); return counter >= ids_to_check.length; })
test_2
var joined_array = [ ...array_1, ...array_2, ...array_3, ] var counter = 0; joined_array.every(object => { if (ids_to_check.includes(object.id)) { counter++; } return counter >= ids_to_check.length; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test_1
test_2

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark definition and analyze what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of two different approaches to check if IDs exist in arrays using JavaScript's `every()` method and the spread operator (`...`).

**Approach 1: Using `every()` with nested loops (Test case 1)**

In this approach, three arrays (`array_1`, `array_2`, and `array_3`) are joined into a single array `joined_array`. Then, the `every()` method is used to iterate over each array in `joined_array`. For each array, another `every()` loop is executed to check if the ID exists in that array. If an ID is found, a counter is incremented.

**Approach 2: Using spread operator (`...`) with single `every()` loop (Test case 2)**

In this approach, the three arrays are joined into a single array using the spread operator (`...`). Then, a single `every()` loop is used to iterate over each element in the joined array. If an ID exists in any of the arrays, the counter is incremented.

**What options are compared?**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

1. A nested `every()` loop approach (Test case 1)
2. A single `every()` loop approach with spread operator (`...`) (Test case 2)

**Pros and Cons:**

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages:

* **Nested `every()` loop approach (Test case 1)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to read and understand
		- No need for the spread operator, which can be slower in some browsers
	+ Cons:
		- Two loops are executed, potentially slowing down performance
* **Single `every()` loop approach with spread operator (`...`) (Test case 2)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Only one loop is executed, potentially improving performance
		- Uses the spread operator for array concatenation
	+ Cons:
		- More complex to read and understand due to the spread operator
		- Might be slower in some browsers

**Library and features:**

No external libraries are used in this benchmark. However, JavaScript's built-in methods (`every()`, `includes()`) are utilized.

**Other alternatives:**

Some alternative approaches could include:

* Using a single loop with a flat array of elements
* Utilizing a library like Lodash for array manipulation
* Implementing a custom solution using JavaScript's native methods

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and trade-offs.

The benchmark results show that Test case 1 (nested `every()` loop approach) outperforms Test case 2 (single `every()` loop with spread operator) by approximately 8.5% on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 system running Safari 16. However, this result might vary depending on the specific environment and browser being used.

Related benchmarks:

Test_every (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test_1 vs test_2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test_1

test_2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):