Benchmark: spread for test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a1 = ["2023-12-13 14:00:00", "2023-12-13 14:01:00", "2023-12-13 14:02:00"];
var a2 = ["2023-12-13 14:02:00", "2023-12-13 14:03:00", "2023-12-13 14:04:00"];

Tests:

spread
const set = new Set([...a1, ...a2]);
for
const set = new Set(); for (let i = 0; i < a1.length; ++i) { set.add(a1[i]); } for (let i = 0; i < a2.length; ++i) { set.add(a2[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spread	1420509.9 Ops/sec
for	1520861.2 Ops/sec

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 is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides two different approaches to create a `Set` data structure from two arrays, `a1` and `a2`. The first approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate the arrays: `"const set = new Set([...a1, ...a2]);"`. The second approach uses a `for` loop to iterate over each array and add elements to the `Set`: `"const set = new Set();\r\nfor (let i = 0; i < a1.length; ++i) {\r\n  set.add(a1[i]);\r\n}\r\nfor (let i = 0; i < a2.length; ++i) {\r\n  set.add(a2[i]);\r\n}"`.

**Comparison**

The two approaches are being compared to determine which one is faster. The benchmark aims to measure the execution time of each approach, which will be displayed as `ExecutionsPerSecond` in the benchmark results.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Spread Operator (`...`) Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable code
		+ Less prone to errors due to its inherent safety features (e.g., avoiding duplicate elements)
	* Cons:
		+ May incur a slight performance overhead due to the creation of intermediate arrays
2. **For Loop Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ More control over the iteration process
		+ Can be more efficient for large datasets or specific use cases where `Set` is not suitable
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code, increasing the risk of errors
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of the loop and array operations

**Library/Functionality**

In this benchmark, there are no external libraries used. However, it's worth noting that the `Set` data structure is a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives or comparisons, here are some additional options:

* **Array.prototype.concat()**: Another way to concatenate arrays and create a new array. However, it's less efficient than the spread operator for large datasets.
* **String interpolation with `${}`**: A modern JavaScript feature that allows you to insert expressions inside string literals using template literals. While not directly applicable here, it demonstrates the evolving nature of JavaScript syntax.
* **Native array methods (e.g., `filter()`, `map()`, `reduce()`)**: These can be used in combination with `Set` to achieve similar results. However, they may incur additional overhead due to their inherent functionality.

Please note that these alternatives might not directly compare to the spread operator and for loop approaches in terms of performance or applicability, but they showcase the versatility and flexibility of JavaScript features and syntax.

Related benchmarks:

spread for test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs for

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):