Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
qdqsdqsdqsdsdqsd
(version: 0)
qdqsdqsdqsdsdqsd
Comparing performance of:
test 1 vs test 2
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
window.allFunctions = [ undefined, undefined, () => {}, undefined, () => {}, undefined, () => {}, undefined, () => {}, () => {}, undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, () => {}, undefined, () => {}, () => {}, undefined, ];
Tests:
test 1
allFunctions.forEach((fn) => fn());
test 2
allFunctions.forEach((fn) => { if(typeof fn === 'function') { fn() } });
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll explain the provided benchmarking test. **What is tested?** The benchmark tests two different approaches to iterating over an array of functions in JavaScript. 1. **Direct iteration**: The first benchmark (`test 1`) uses the `forEach` method directly on the `allFunctions` array, calling each function immediately with `(fn) => fn();`. 2. **Type checking and indirect iteration**: The second benchmark (`test 2`) also uses the `forEach` method, but adds an additional type check to ensure that only functions are executed: `(fn) => { if (typeof fn === 'function') { fn() } }`. **Options compared** The two approaches compare: * Direct iteration vs. indirect iteration with type checking * The impact of adding a simple type check on performance **Pros and cons of each approach** **Direct Iteration (`test 1`)** Pros: * Simple and concise code * No overhead from type checking Cons: * May execute non-function values (e.g., `undefined`) faster, which could affect results * Does not account for potential side effects in functions **Indirect Iteration with Type Checking (`test 2`)** Pros: * Ensures that only functions are executed, preventing potential issues with non-function values * May provide more accurate results by excluding non-function values from the execution count Cons: * Adds a small overhead due to the type check and conditional statement * May introduce slight performance penalties compared to direct iteration **Library usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark, but `forEach` is a built-in JavaScript method. **Special JS feature/syntax** There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that using `for...of` loops or `map()`/`filter()` would be more idiomatic ways to iterate over an array of functions in modern JavaScript. **Other alternatives** Some alternative approaches to iterating over an array of functions could include: * Using a `for` loop with an index variable * Using a recursive function to iterate over the array * Utilizing async/await or Promises to handle function execution However, these alternatives are not directly represented in the provided benchmarking test.
Related benchmarks:
Check existence
Memory Usage
typeof undefined vs undefined equality check
Lodash isEqual vs Every Undefined test
_.isEmpty() vs null check undefined check and Object.keys
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?