Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Filter + pop vs Filter + at
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
filter + pop vs filter + at
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
filter + pop
const arr = [{name: 'jean',index: 1},{name: 'mark',index: 2},{name: 'jean',index: 3}, {name: 'mark',index: 4}] for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ const item = arr.filter(item => item.name === 'jean').pop() }
filter + at
const arr = [{name: 'jean',index: 1},{name: 'mark',index: 2},{name: 'jean',index: 3}, {name: 'mark',index: 4}] for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ const item = arr.filter(item => item.name === 'jean').at(-1) }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
filter + pop
filter + at
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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is a set of instructions for creating and running a JavaScript microbenchmark. In this case, we have two test cases: "Filter + pop" and "Filter + at". **What is being tested?** We are testing the performance of two approaches: 1. **Filter + pop**: This approach uses the `filter()` method to create an array with elements that match a certain condition (in this case, `item.name === 'jean'`). The `pop()` method is then used to remove and return the last element from the filtered array. 2. **Filter + at**: Similar to the previous approach, but instead of using `pop()`, we use the `at()` method with an index `-1` to get the last element from the filtered array. **Options compared** The two approaches differ in how they access the last element from the filtered array: * `filter() + pop()`: Creates a new array with elements that match the condition, and then uses `pop()` to remove and return the last element. * `filter() + at()`: Creates a new array with elements that match the condition, and then uses `at()` with an index `-1` to get the last element. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: * **Filter + pop**: + Pros: Simple and straightforward. The `pop()` method is widely supported by most browsers. + Cons: May create a new array object, which can lead to increased memory allocation and garbage collection overhead. * **Filter + at()**: + Pros: Can avoid creating a new array object, as the original array is modified in-place. This can reduce memory allocation and garbage collection overhead. + Cons: The `at()` method may not be supported by all browsers, and its behavior can vary depending on the browser implementation. **Library usage** There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some JavaScript engines and browsers provide additional features or optimizations that might affect performance. For example: * **Chrome 117**: The benchmark is executed in Chrome 117, which may have additional optimizations or features enabled (e.g., `at()` method support). **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. **Other alternatives** If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options: * **Using `slice()`**: Instead of using `pop()` or `at()`, you could use `slice()` to create an array with elements that match the condition. This approach may have similar performance characteristics to `filter()` + `pop()`. * **Using `findLast()`**: Some modern JavaScript engines and browsers support the `findLast()` method, which can be used to find the last element in an array that matches a certain condition. * **NativeArray methods**: If you're working with native arrays (e.g., using `Array.from()` or `new Int32Array()`) instead of arrays created by `Array.prototype` methods, you may be able to use specialized methods like `lastIndexOf()` or `at()` to access the last element. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not always outperform the original approach, and their performance characteristics can vary depending on the browser implementation.
Related benchmarks:
arr.pop() vs arr.shift() vs arr[0]
JS Filter Test with fasterFilter
JS Slice vs. Pop for last element
JS Slice vs. Pop vs index for last element
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?