Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
getRelevantPositions
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Stara opcja vs Nowa opcja
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=516744" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Nowa opcja
2K/s
Stara opcja
2K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Nowa opcja
1,977 Ops/sec
Stara opcja
1,627 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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
Lodash isEqual test vs strict equality check
Lodash isEqual test vs Custom Recursive Function
Lodash isEqual compare with custom deepEqual in compare objects 1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?