Benchmark: Cached vs Not Cached vs IndexOf

Script Preparation code:

var test = {currentTile: {tileID: 659}};
var specialTiles = [320, 323, 656, 659];

function cannotGoUp(from) {
    if (from.currentTile.tileID == 320 ||
        from.currentTile.tileID == 323 ||
        from.currentTile.tileID == 656 ||
        from.currentTile.tileID == 659) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

function cannotGoUpCached(from) {
  	var tileID = from.currentTile.tileID;
    if (tileID == 320 ||
        tileID == 323 ||
        tileID == 656 ||
        tileID == 659) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

function cannotGoUpIndexOf(from) {
  	return specialTiles.indexOf(from.currentTile.tileID) >= 0 ? true : false;
}

Tests:

Not Cached
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){cannotGoUp(test);}
Cached
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){cannotGoUpCached(test);}
IndexOf
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){cannotGoUpIndexOf(test);}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Not Cached
Cached
IndexOf

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.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition represents three different approaches to check if a tile ID is in a list of special IDs. The functions are:

1. `cannotGoUp(from)`: This function checks if the current tile ID (`from.currentTile.tileID`) is equal to any of the special IDs (320, 323, 656, or 659).
2. `cannotGoUpCached(from)`: This function stores the current tile ID in a variable and then compares it with the list of special IDs.
3. `cannotGoUpIndexOf(from)`: This function uses the `indexOf()` method to search for the current tile ID in the list of special IDs.

**Comparison**
The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches:

1. **Not Cached**: This approach uses a simple comparison (`==`) to check if the current tile ID is equal to any of the special IDs.
2. **Cached**: This approach stores the current tile ID in a variable and then compares it with the list of special IDs using a direct comparison (`===`).
3. **IndexOf**: This approach uses the `indexOf()` method, which searches for the specified value (in this case, the current tile ID) in the array of special IDs.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Not Cached**:
	* Pros: Simple, fast, and straightforward.
	* Cons: May be slower than other approaches due to repeated comparisons.
2. **Cached**:
	* Pros: Faster because it avoids repeated comparisons by storing the value once.
	* Cons: Requires more memory to store the variable, which may not be desirable in all scenarios.
3. **IndexOf**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient when dealing with large lists of special IDs.
	* Cons: May require additional memory to store the array reference.

**Other Considerations**

* The `cannotGoUpCached(from)` function has a small performance advantage over `cannotGoUp(from)`, but it comes at the cost of extra memory usage. If memory is a concern, this approach might not be the best choice.
* The `cannotGoUpIndexOf(from)` function uses the `indexOf()` method, which may incur additional overhead due to the function call and array iteration. However, if you need to perform many searches in an array, this approach can be faster.

**Library/Functionality**

The `indexOf()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value in an array. In this case, it's used to search for the current tile ID in the list of special IDs.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not utilize any advanced features like arrow functions, destructuring, or async/await.

Related benchmarks:

Cached vs Not Cached vs IndexOf (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Not Cached vs Cached vs IndexOf

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Not Cached

Cached

IndexOf

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):