Benchmark: loop vs raw fn - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var fnA = (parts, str) => {
  const result = []
  for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
	if (i < 999) parts.push(i)
    str += i + '/'
    result.push(i)
  }
  return { result, parts, str }
}

var fnB = () => {
  const result = []
  for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    result.push(i)
  }
  return { result }
}

Tests:

fnA
var b = fnA([], '')
fnB
var c = fnB() var c_parts = c.result.slice(0, -1) var c_str = c.result.join('/')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fnA
fnB

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net!

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark definition and test cases measure the performance of two functions, `fnA` and `fnB`, in terms of execution speed and memory usage.

**Function `fnA`:**

`fnA` is a function that takes an array `parts` and a string `str` as input. It returns an object with three properties: `result`, `parts`, and `str`. The function iterates over the range 0 to 999, pushes values to the `parts` array, appends the value to the `str` string, and pushes the value to the `result` array.

**Function `fnB`:**

`fnB` is a function that takes no input arguments. It returns an object with a single property `result`. The function iterates over the range 0 to 999, pushing values to the `result` array.

**Comparison options:**

The benchmark compares the execution speed and memory usage of these two functions:

1. **Raw function**: This option executes the functions without any modifications.
2. **Loop optimization**: This option applies loop optimizations to the functions, which may improve performance but also adds complexity to the codebase.

**Pros and Cons of comparison options:**

* **Raw function**: This option provides a baseline for comparison, as it doesn't introduce any additional complexity or overhead.
* **Loop optimization**: This option can potentially improve performance by applying loop optimizations, but it may also add unnecessary complexity to the codebase. The pros of this option include improved performance, while the cons include increased code complexity and potential maintenance difficulties.

**Library usage:**

In both test cases, no libraries are used. The functions `fnA` and `fnB` are self-contained, with no external dependencies.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

There is no specific use of special JavaScript features or syntax in these benchmark definitions.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **TypeScript**: Using TypeScript can provide additional type checking and performance benefits.
2. **ES6+ features**: Utilizing ES6+ features like `let`, `const`, `Arrow functions`, or `template literals` may improve performance.
3. **Caching mechanisms**: Implementing caching mechanisms, such as Memoization, can help reduce the overhead of repeated function calls.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant changes to your codebase and might not always lead to improved performance.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's going on with this JavaScript microbenchmark!

Related benchmarks:

loop vs raw fn (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fnA vs fnB

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

fnA

fnB

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):