Benchmark: aaaasdasd - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [
  {name: 'asd'},
  {name: 'asd'},
  {name: 'asd', age: 20},
  {name: 'asd', age: 21},
  {name: 'asd'},
  {name: 'asd'},
]

Tests:

filter
array.filter(el => el.age).pop()
reverse
[...array].reverse().find(el => el.age)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
reverse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	10081760.0 Ops/sec
reverse	9691552.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmark at MeasureThat.net.

**Overview**

The benchmark consists of two test cases: `filter` and `reverse`. Both tests use an array as input data.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is the following JavaScript snippet:
```javascript
var array = [
  {name: 'asd'},
  {name: 'asd'},
  {name: 'asd', age: 20},
  {name: 'asd', age: 21},
  {name: 'asd'},
  {name: 'asd'},
];
```
This code creates an array with six objects, where each object has a `name` property.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty (`null`), which means that the benchmark does not include any HTML-related setup or teardown.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Filter**
The test case uses the `array.filter(el => el.age).pop()` expression, which filters the array to exclude objects without an `age` property and then returns the last remaining object.
2. **Reverse**
The test case uses the `[...array].reverse().find(el => el.age)` expression, which reverses the array and then finds the first object that has an `age` property.

**Options Compared**

In both test cases, the following options are being compared:

* Different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8)
* Different browser versions
* Different devices (Desktop vs. unknown)

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

The two approaches used in the benchmark have their pros and cons:

1. **Filter**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast filtering algorithm (since it uses `pop()` to remove elements one by one).
		+ Can be optimized for arrays with a small number of objects.
	* Cons:
		+ May not perform well on large arrays due to the overhead of repeatedly calling `pop()`.
2. **Reverse**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for the use of more advanced algorithms (e.g., `reverse()` and `find()`).
		+ Can be optimized for arrays with a small number of objects.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower filtering algorithm compared to `filter()`.
		+ May not perform well on large arrays due to the overhead of reversing the array.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in either test case. However, the use of `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.reverse()` suggests that the benchmark is using the built-in JavaScript array methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither of the test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in modern JavaScript (ES6+).

**Alternatives**

If you were to run this benchmark on a different platform, you might see variations in execution speed due to differences in:

* Language runtime (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey)
* Browser engine (e.g., Blink vs. Gecko)
* Device-specific optimizations
* Operating system and hardware configurations

Keep in mind that these factors can introduce variability in benchmark results, so it's essential to run benchmarks multiple times on different platforms to ensure representative results.

Related benchmarks:

aaaasdasd (version: 0)

bbbb

Comparing performance of: filter vs reverse

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

reverse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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