Benchmark: getRelevantPositions

Tests:

Stara opcja
const IRRELEVANT_PARAGRAPHS = [ '401', '402', '404', '405', '406', '407', '408', '409', '410', '411', '412', '417', '418', '471', '474', '475', '478', '479', '480', '483', '484', '485', '801', '804', '806', '807', '808', '809', '810', '811', '812', '813', '814', '605', '606', '610', '613', '615', '617', '619', '620', '621', '622', '623', '625', '630', '637', '647', '648', '649', '656', '657', '658', '659', '661', '662', '663', '664', '665', '666', '669', '672', '680', ]; const IRRELEVANT_GROUPS = ['1400', '1810', '1600', '1601', '1602', '1610', '1611', '1612']; const positions = []; const classificationDetailLevels = ['paragraph', 'systemGroup', 'ordinanceGroup']; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * classificationDetailLevels.length); positions.push({ paragraph: `Paragraph ${Math.floor(Math.random() * 10)}`, group: `Group ${Math.floor(Math.random() * 5)}`, }); } const getRelevantPositions = (outgoings, classificationDetailLevel) => outgoings.filter((position) => { switch (classificationDetailLevel) { case 'paragraph': return position.paragraph && !IRRELEVANT_PARAGRAPHS.includes(position.paragraph); case 'systemGroup': case 'ordinanceGroup': return position.group && !IRRELEVANT_GROUPS.includes(position.group); default: return false; } }); classificationDetailLevels.forEach((classificationDetailLevel) => getRelevantPositions(positions, classificationDetailLevel))
Nowa opcja
const IRRELEVANT_PARAGRAPHS = [ '401', '402', '404', '405', '406', '407', '408', '409', '410', '411', '412', '417', '418', '471', '474', '475', '478', '479', '480', '483', '484', '485', '801', '804', '806', '807', '808', '809', '810', '811', '812', '813', '814', '605', '606', '610', '613', '615', '617', '619', '620', '621', '622', '623', '625', '630', '637', '647', '648', '649', '656', '657', '658', '659', '661', '662', '663', '664', '665', '666', '669', '672', '680', ]; const IRRELEVANT_GROUPS = ['1400', '1810', '1600', '1601', '1602', '1610', '1611', '1612']; const positions = []; const classificationDetailLevels = ['paragraph', 'systemGroup', 'ordinanceGroup']; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * classificationDetailLevels.length); positions.push({ paragraph: `Paragraph ${Math.floor(Math.random() * 10)}`, group: `Group ${Math.floor(Math.random() * 5)}`, }); } const getRelevantPositions = ({ outgoings, classificationDetailLevel }) => { let condition; switch (classificationDetailLevel) { case 'paragraph': condition = (position) => position.paragraph && !IRRELEVANT_PARAGRAPHS.includes(position.paragraph); break; case 'systemGroup': case 'ordinanceGroup': condition = (position) => position.group && !IRRELEVANT_GROUPS.includes(position.group); break; return outgoings.filter(contidion) } } classificationDetailLevels.forEach((classificationDetailLevel) => getRelevantPositions(positions, classificationDetailLevel))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Stara opcja
Nowa opcja

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/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Stara opcja	1626.7 Ops/sec
Nowa opcja	1976.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is empty, which means that MeasureThat.net will use its own default configuration for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Stara opcja (Old Option)**

This test case uses a traditional switch statement to filter out irrelevant positions:
```javascript
const getRelevantPositions = (outgoings, classificationDetailLevel) => {
  let condition;
  switch (classificationDetailLevel) {
    case 'paragraph':
      condition = (position) => position.paragraph && !IRRELEVANT_PARAGRAPHS.includes(position.paragraph);
      break;
    case 'systemGroup':
    case 'ordinanceGroup':
      condition = (position) => position.group && !IRRELEVANT_GROUPS.includes(position.group);
      break;
  }
  return outgoings.filter(condition)
}
```
2. **Nowa opcja (New Option)**

This test case uses a more concise syntax with an arrow function to define the filter condition:
```javascript
const getRelevantPositions = ({ outgoings, classificationDetailLevel }) => {
  let condition;
  switch (classificationDetailLevel) {
    case 'paragraph':
      condition = (position) => position.paragraph && !IRRELEVANT_PARAGRAPHS.includes(position.paragraph);
      break;
    case 'systemGroup':
    case 'ordinanceGroup':
      condition = (position) => position.group && !IRRELEVANT_GROUPS.includes(position.group);
      break;
  }
  return outgoings.filter(condition)
}
```
**What's being tested?**

Both test cases are testing the performance of the `getRelevantPositions` function, which filters out irrelevant positions based on a given classification detail level. The main difference between the two is the syntax used to define the filter condition.

**Comparison**

MeasureThat.net will compare the execution times of both test cases using the same input data. This allows users to see how the performance of the `getRelevantPositions` function varies depending on the chosen syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

The traditional switch statement (Stara opcja) has some pros:

* Easy to understand for developers familiar with traditional switch statements.
* May be more readable for those who prefer a explicit, step-by-step approach.

However, it also has some cons:

* Can be less concise and more verbose than the new syntax.
* May not be as performant due to the overhead of explicit type checking and function definitions.

The new syntax (Nowa opcja) has some pros:

* More concise and readable for developers familiar with modern JavaScript features.
* May be faster due to reduced overhead from explicit type checking and function definitions.

However, it also has some cons:

* Can be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with arrow functions and concise syntax.
* May not be as widely supported across different browsers and environments.

Overall, MeasureThat.net will provide users with a clear comparison of the performance differences between these two syntax options.

Related benchmarks:

getRelevantPositions (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Stara opcja vs Nowa opcja

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Stara opcja

Nowa opcja

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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