Benchmark: FILTERvastaanMAP

Script Preparation code:

var newArr = [{"name": "nimi1", "value": 1}, {"name": "nimi2", "value": 200}, {"name": "nimi3", "value": 6.6}, {"name": "nimi4", "value": 61}, {"name": "nimi5", "value": 2000}, {"name": "nimi6", "value": 1.2}, {"name": "nimi7", "value": 5.5}, {"name": "nimi8", "value": 123}, {"name": "nimi9", "value": 321}, {"name": "nimi10", "value": 10}];
var oldArr = [{"name": "nimi1", "value": 1}, {"name": "nimi2", "value": 200}, {"name": "nimi3", "value": 600.6}, {"name": "nimi4", "value": 61}, {"name": "nimi5", "value": 2000}, {"name": "nimi6", "value": 1.2}, {"name": "nimi7", "value": 5.5}, {"name": "nimi8", "value": 123}, {"name": "nimi9", "value": 321}, {"name": "nimi10", "value": 10}];

Tests:

filter
let parameterListContainingOnlyChangedParameters = newArr.filter((changedParameter, index) => { return newArr.value !== oldArr[index].value; });
map
let parameterListContainingOnlyChangedParameters = []; newArr.map((changedParameter, index) => { if (changedParameter.value !== oldArr[index].value) { parameterListContainingOnlyChangedParameters.push(changedParameter) } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
map

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in two parts: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The script preparation code contains JavaScript arrays (`newArr` and `oldArr`) with similar data. The `Html Preparation Code` is empty, which means no HTML is being used to prepare the input for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Filter**: This test case uses the `filter()` method on the `newArr` array to create a new array (`parameterListContainingOnlyChangedParameters`) that contains only the elements where `newArr.value !== oldArr[index].value`.
2. **Map**: This test case uses the `map()` method on the `newArr` array to create a new array (`parameterListContainingOnlyChangedParameters`) that contains only the elements where `changedParameter.value !== oldArr[index].value`. The result is then pushed into an empty array.

**Comparison of Options**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Filter**: This method creates a new array with specific elements and has a time complexity of O(n), where n is the length of the original array.
2. **Map**: This method also creates a new array with specific elements, but it's not as efficient as `filter()` for this particular use case.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Filter**
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient (O(n)) for most cases
		+ Creates a new array with the desired elements
	* Cons:
		+ May create unnecessary copies of large arrays
2. **Map**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible than `filter()` (can be used for more complex transformations)
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient than `filter()` for this particular use case

**Other Considerations**

* The test cases are comparing two common JavaScript methods, making it easy to reproduce and compare results.
* The benchmark is specific to the scenario of filtering an array based on a value comparison, which might not be representative of all use cases.

**Libraries and Special Features**

There are no explicit libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, some libraries (e.g., Lodash) provide optimized versions of `filter()` and `map()` methods.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases.

**Alternatives**

If you want to compare other filtering methods or use a different approach, consider alternatives like:

* Using `every()` and reducing() instead of filter and map.
* Using `findIndex()` and slice() instead of filter.
* Using a custom loop with conditional statements instead of built-in array methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and might not be as efficient or concise as the original approach.

Related benchmarks:

FILTERvastaanMAP (version: 0)

filter metodi vastaan amp metodi

Comparing performance of: filter vs map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

map

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):