Benchmark: Inline Cache2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var sample_arr = new Array()
for (const x of Array(5).keys()) {
    window.sample_arr = {
        x,
        y: x + 1
    }
}
console.log(window.sample_arr)

Tests:

Single Loop
// s1 = sample_arr.map(x => console.log(x.x, x.y)) for (const x of sample_arr) { console.log(x.x, x.y) }
2 seq Loops
//s2 = sample_arr.map(x => console.log(x.x)) //s3 = sample_arr.map(x => console.log(x.y)) for (const x of sample_arr) { console.log(x.x) } for (const x of sample_arr) { console.log(x.y) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Single Loop
2 seq Loops

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 break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that can be executed by MeasureThat.net. The script preparation code is used to set up the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it initializes an array `sample_arr` with 5 elements using the `Array(5).keys()` method and assigns it to the global scope variable `window.sample_arr`. This allows us to access and manipulate the array within the benchmark.

The HTML preparation code is empty in this case, which means that no specific HTML setup is required for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Single Loop**: The benchmark definition uses an arrow function `x => console.log(x.x, x.y)` to map over the `sample_arr` array and log each element's `x` and `y` properties. Then, it iterates over the array again using a traditional for loop (`for (const x of sample_arr)`) and logs each element's `x` property.
2. **2 seq Loops**: This test case is similar to the Single Loop test case, but instead of logging `x.y`, it only logs `x.x`. Additionally, it uses two separate loops: one for mapping over the array and another for iterating over it.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `Array` object's `keys()` method is used, which returns an iterator that generates a sequence of numbers from 0 to `length - 1`. This method is not part of any specific library but is a standard JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested here. The benchmark uses only standard JavaScript language features.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, the options being compared are:

* **Single Loop**: vs. **2 seq Loops**
* Both loops map over the `sample_arr` array and log each element's properties.
* However, in the Single Loop test case, both `x.x` and `y` are logged simultaneously using an arrow function.
* In the 2 seq Loops test case, only `x.x` is logged separately in a traditional for loop.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Single Loop**: Pros:
	* Simpler code
	* Less overhead due to fewer loops
	* Can be faster for small arrays or simple log operations
Cons:
	* May not accurately represent real-world performance for larger arrays or more complex log operations
2. **2 seq Loops**: Pros:
	* More accurate representation of real-world performance for larger arrays or more complex log operations
Cons:
	* Longer code execution time due to multiple loops
	* May be slower for small arrays or simple log operations

**Other Alternatives**

MeasureThat.net provides a variety of benchmarking options, including:

* **V8 Benchmark**: Tests the performance of JavaScript engines using the V8 engine.
* **SpiderMonkey Benchmark**: Tests the performance of JavaScript engines using the SpiderMonkey engine.
* **Web Workers Benchmark**: Tests the performance of web workers and parallel execution.

These alternatives can provide more comprehensive insights into the performance characteristics of different JavaScript engines or web worker configurations.

Related benchmarks:

Inline Cache2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Single Loop vs 2 seq Loops

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Single Loop

2 seq Loops

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):