Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
filter vs if
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
filter vs if
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
filter
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].filter((v) => v != 2)
if
if (2 != 2) {}
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
filter
if
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 136 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=606372" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
if
214.3M/s
filter
65.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
if
214,268,560 Ops/sec
filter
65,707,548 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the test cases and explain what is being tested on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two different approaches to check if a number is not equal to 2: **Approach 1: Using `filter()`** The first test case uses the `filter()` method: ```javascript [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].filter((v) => v != 2) ``` This code creates a new array containing only the elements that do not meet the condition `v != 2`. In this case, it will exclude the number 2 from the original array. **Approach 2: Using an `if` statement** The second test case uses a simple `if` statement: ```javascript if (2 != 2) {} ``` This code checks if the condition `2 != 2` is true, and if it is, it executes the empty block of code inside the `if` statement. **Pros and Cons:** * **Filter() approach:** This approach is more concise and readable. It also has a lower memory overhead since it only creates a new array with the filtered elements. * However, this approach may be slower than the `if` statement approach since it involves creating a new array and iterating over its elements. * The `if` statement approach can be faster in some cases because it avoids the overhead of creating a new array. **Other considerations:** * Both approaches are straightforward to understand, making them suitable for beginners and experienced developers alike. * The use of an array filter or an `if` statement is not specific to JavaScript; these patterns are used in many programming languages to perform conditional checks. **Library usage:** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `filter()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that works on arrays. **Special JS features or syntax:** The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. The code uses standard JavaScript constructs such as arrays and conditional statements. **Alternative approaches:** Other alternatives to these two approaches include: * Using regular expressions with `Array.prototype.every()`: ```javascript [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].every((v) => !/(2)/.test(v)) ``` * Using a `forEach` loop with an `if` statement inside the callback function: ```javascript [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].forEach(function (v) { if (v != 2) { // do something } }) ``` These approaches may be less readable or more memory-intensive than the original `filter()` and `if` statement examples. In summary, the MeasureThat.net benchmark tests two common approaches to check if a number is not equal to 2: using `filter()` and an `if` statement. While both approaches have their pros and cons, they are straightforward to understand and suitable for a wide range of developers.
Related benchmarks
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster?
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster2?
Which comparison operator (> vs ===) is faster?
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?