Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
filter in Math.min
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
sdfsdfs vs dgsdgsd
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
sdfsdfs
function solution(arr) { const min = Math.min(...arr) return arr.length !== 1 ? arr.filter(el => el !== min) : [-1] }
dgsdgsd
function solution(arr) { return arr.length !== 1 ? arr.filter(el => el !== Math.min(...arr)) : [-1] }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
sdfsdfs
dgsdgsd
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'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark. The benchmark is testing two different approaches to filtering an array of numbers in JavaScript. The two functions, `solution1` and `solution2`, are identical except for one key difference: in `solution1`, they use `Math.min(...arr)` to find the minimum element, while in `solution2`, they directly access the `min` property of the `Array.prototype`. Let's break down each approach: **Approach 1: Using `Math.min()`** This approach uses the `Math.min()` function to find the minimum element in the array. The `...arr` syntax is called "spread syntax" or "rest parameter" and allows you to pass an array as a single argument to a function. Pros: * This approach is widely supported across modern JavaScript engines. * It's concise and easy to read. Cons: * It requires a small overhead due to the creation of a new `Array.prototype` object with the minimum value. * Some older browsers might not support it. **Approach 2: Directly accessing `min` property** This approach directly accesses the `min` property of the `Array.prototype`, which is an internal property that stores the smallest element in the array. This property is specific to Array.prototype and can be accessed through the `arr[0]`. Pros: * This approach has a small constant overhead compared to Approach 1. * It's a native operation, so it's likely to be faster and more efficient. Cons: * This approach is not as concise or readable as Approach 1, requiring more explicit code. * It relies on the specific implementation of Array.prototype in each JavaScript engine, which might vary. The benchmark is testing the performance difference between these two approaches. By using a library like MeasureThat.net, users can compare the execution times and choose the approach that best suits their needs. As for libraries or special features being used, there are none mentioned in this specific benchmark definition. However, if you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are some options: * Instead of `Math.min()`, you could use a simple iterative approach to find the minimum element, which would eliminate the need for a built-in function. * You could also use a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provide optimized implementations of various mathematical functions, including `min`. * For modern JavaScript engines that support it, you can also use Arrow functions and destructuring to create more concise code. Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.
Related benchmarks:
Math.max/min vs ternary operator (in functions)
Math.max/min vs if vs ternary operator 232323
Math min simple vs ternary greater than
Clamping via min-max or ternary operator
Negate Number
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?