Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
array include
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
include vs dummy
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
const a = [...Array(50000)].map(()=>self.crypto.randomUUID())
Tests:
include
a.include("a")
dummy
console.log()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
include
dummy
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):
Let's dive into the explanation of the MeasureThat.net benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run tests to measure the performance of different code snippets. In this specific example, we have two test cases: 1. `array include`: This test case creates an array with 50,000 random UUIDs using the `self.crypto.randomUUID()` function. 2. `dummy`: This is a simple test that only logs a message to the console using `console.log()`. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two code snippets across different browsers and devices. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **`array include`**: * Pros: + Simulates a common use case for including arrays in JavaScript applications. + Can be useful for testing array manipulation and storage performance. * Cons: + May not accurately represent real-world scenarios, as it only tests a specific operation. + The large array size can lead to slower execution times due to memory allocation and garbage collection. 2. **`dummy`**: * Pros: + Simple and easy to understand, making it suitable for testing basic execution time. + Can be used as a baseline or warm-up test before running more complex benchmarks. * Cons: + Not very representative of real-world scenarios, as it only logs a message to the console. + May not accurately measure performance in cases where logging or printing is optimized. **Library and its purpose** In this benchmark, the `self.crypto.randomUUID()` function is used to generate random UUIDs. This function is part of the Web Cryptography API (W3C), which provides a set of cryptographic primitives for JavaScript applications. **Special JS feature or syntax** There is no special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code snippets are straightforward and do not utilize any advanced features. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider using other test cases that simulate common use cases in JavaScript development, such as: * String manipulation (e.g., concatenation, substring extraction) * Array operations (e.g., sorting, filtering) * Object creation and iteration * DOM manipulation Keep in mind that the specific test cases and code snippets used will depend on your goals and target audience. In terms of alternative benchmarking tools or platforms, MeasureThat.net is a unique platform specifically designed for JavaScript microbenchmarks. Some other popular benchmarking tools and frameworks include: * Benchmark.js: A lightweight benchmarking library for Node.js and browser-based applications. * JSDOM: A library that allows you to run tests in a simulated browser environment. * Jest: A popular testing framework for JavaScript applications. These tools can be used to create custom benchmarks or tests, but they may not offer the same level of simplicity and ease of use as MeasureThat.net.
Related benchmarks:
Math.random vs Crypto.getRandomValues for 10k values
Set string vs number
Set string vs number #1
Set string vs number (100k)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?