Benchmark: testz0r1 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

groupedObj = {
google:[
  {external_cal: 'google', name: 'Contacts'},
  {external_cal: 'google', name: 'MyCalendar'},
  {external_cal: 'google', name: 'Holidays'},
],
none: [ {external_cal: 'none', name: 'My calendar'},],
ms:[
  {external_cal: 'ms', name: 'Outlook 1'},
  {external_cal: 'ms', name: 'Outlook 2'},
]
};
availebleFilters = [
  {label: 'All calendars'}
];

Tests:

spread
Object.keys(groupedObj).forEach((key) => { const groupedFilters = groupedObj[key].map(el => ({ label: el.name })); availebleFilters = [ ...availebleFilters, {label: key === 'none' ? 'Nimble' : key, isLabel: true}, ...groupedFilters ]; });
push
Object.keys(groupedObj).forEach((key) => { availebleFilters.push({ label: key === 'none' ? 'Nimble' : key, isLabel: true }); const groupedLabels = groupedObj[key].map(el => ({ label: el.name })); groupedLabels.forEach((el) => { availebleFilters.push(el); }) });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
push

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by the JSON object provided earlier:
```json
{
  "Name": "testz0r1",
  "Description": null,
  "Script Preparation Code": "...",
  "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```
This script preparation code defines an object `groupedObj` with multiple properties, each representing a different calendar type (e.g., Google, Microsoft Outlook). The script also defines an array `availebleFilters` that will be used to store the test results.

**Benchmark Testing**

The benchmark testing involves running two individual test cases:

1. **"spread"`: This test case uses the `Object.keys()` function to iterate over the properties of `groupedObj`. For each property, it maps over the corresponding array of calendar entries and extracts a label from each entry. The resulting labels are then spread into the `availebleFilters` array.
2. **"push"`: This test case uses a similar approach as the "spread" test, but instead of using the `Object.keys()` function to iterate over the properties, it pushes each calendar entry's label directly onto the `availebleFilters` array.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare different approaches for populating the `availebleFilters` array:

* **"spread"`: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to expand an array of objects into a new array. It also uses the `Object.keys()` function to iterate over the properties of `groupedObj`.
* **"push"`: This approach manually pushes each calendar entry's label onto the `availebleFilters` array using the `push()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**"spread"`**

Pros:

* More concise and expressive
* Uses modern JavaScript features like the spread operator

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of iterating over `Object.keys()`
* Requires a compatible browser that supports the spread operator (e.g., Chrome 64)

**"push"`**

Pros:

* Faster execution time due to manual iteration
* Does not rely on modern JavaScript features like the spread operator

Cons:

* Less concise and less expressive than the "spread" approach
* More verbose code

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also considers the impact of using libraries or special JavaScript features. In this case, there are no notable library dependencies or special JavaScript features used.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark test, you could consider using different approaches for populating the `availebleFilters` array. Some alternatives could include:

* Using a loop instead of `Object.keys()`
* Using an array constructor like `Array.from()` instead of pushing elements onto an array
* Using a different data structure like a Set or Map to store the calendar entries' labels

However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net is specifically designed for comparing performance benchmarks, so it's likely that these alternatives would be subject to similar optimization and caching mechanisms as the original "spread" and "push" test cases.

Related benchmarks:

testz0r1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs push

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

push

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):