Benchmark: useCallback vs inline filter

HTML Preparation code:

<!doctype html>
<html>
  <head>
    <title>This is the title of the webpage!</title>
  </head>
  <body>
  	<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.13.1/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
	<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.13.1/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
	<div id="root"></div> 
  </body>
</html>

Script Preparation code:

var KEYWORDS = "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".split(' ');

function ComponentUseCallback({
    keywords
}) {
    const items = React.useCallback(() => {
        return keywords.filter((v) => !!v);
    }, [keywords]);

    return React.createElement('div', {}, items().join(','));
}

function ComponentUseInline({
    keywords
}) {
    const items = keywords.filter((v) => !!v);

    return React.createElement('div', {}, items.join(','));
}

Tests:

ComponentUseCallback
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(ComponentUseCallback, { keywords: KEYWORDS }), document.getElementById('root'))
ComponentUseInline
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(ComponentUseInline, { keywords: KEYWORDS }), document.getElementById('root'))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ComponentUseCallback
ComponentUseInline

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.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website, which compares two approaches for filtering an array of keywords: `useCallback` and inline filtering.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two functions:

1. `ComponentUseCallback`: Uses `React.useCallback` to memoize the filter function.
2. `ComponentUseInline`: Applies inline filtering using a traditional `filter` method.

Both functions receive an array of keywords as input, which is generated from a predefined string "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code sets up a basic React DOM environment with the necessary dependencies (React and ReactDOM) and a `<div>` element to render the result.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `ComponentUseCallback`: Renders the `ComponentUseCallback` function as a React component using `ReactDOM.render`.
2. `ComponentUseInline`: Renders the `ComponentUseInline` function as a React component using `ReactDOM.render`.

**Comparison**

The test case compares the execution performance of both approaches on two different browsers (Chrome 114) and devices (Desktop). The results are stored in the "ExecutionsPerSecond" field.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **useCallback**: Uses a closure to memoize the filter function, which is called when the component mounts or updates.
2. **Inline Filtering**: Applies filtering directly within the `ComponentUseInline` function, without any additional overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

**useCallback:**

Pros:

* Memoization can improve performance by avoiding unnecessary re-renders of the filtered data.
* Closures help to capture the context of the filter function.

Cons:

* Adds extra complexity and potential memory usage due to the creation of a closure.
* May lead to slower initial rendering times if not properly optimized.

**Inline Filtering:**

Pros:

* Simpler and more straightforward approach.
* No additional overhead or memory usage.

Cons:

* May lead to slower performance due to repeated filtering operations on each render cycle.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Performance**: In this case, the results indicate that `ComponentUseCallback` outperforms `ComponentUseInline`, with an execution rate of 874062 executions per second vs. 785494 executions per second.
2. **Code Readability and Maintainability**: The use of `useCallback` can make the code more readable and maintainable by hiding the complexity of the filter function.
3. **Additional Dependencies**: Using `useCallback` introduces additional dependencies, which may require careful consideration when optimizing or caching the component.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for filtering arrays in React components include:

1. **Using a separate utility function**: Create a reusable utility function that performs the filtering and can be imported by multiple components.
2. **Using React's built-in `useMemo` hook**: Memoize the filtered data using `React.useMemo`, which can provide better performance and caching benefits than `useCallback`.
3. **Optimizing filter operations**: Use techniques like memoization, caching, or parallel processing to optimize filter operations.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and trade-offs between code readability, maintainability, and optimization.

Related benchmarks:

useCallback vs inline filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ComponentUseCallback vs ComponentUseInline

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ComponentUseCallback

ComponentUseInline

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):