Benchmark: Nathans other facet test

Tests:

no length check
const filtersSlugKeys = ['make', 'model', 'trim', 'body', 'color', 'fueltype', 'cc', 'gearbox', 'seats', 'doors']; let a = false; if ( filtersSlugKeys.some(key => !['make', 'model', 'page'].includes(key)) ) { a = true; }
length check
const filtersSlugKeys = ['make', 'model', 'trim', 'body', 'color', 'fueltype', 'cc', 'gearbox', 'seats', 'doors']; let a = false; if ( filtersSlugKeys.some(key => !['make', 'model', 'page'].includes(key)) || filtersSlugKeys.length > 3 ) { a = true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no length check
length check

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
no length check	50273108.0 Ops/sec
length check	49416712.0 Ops/sec

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.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two benchmark tests: `no length check` and `length check`. The test case is designed to measure the performance difference between using a simple `some()` method or an explicit length check for a specific use case. In this case, we're checking if a given array of slug keys (`filtersSlugKeys`) does not include certain values from another array (`['make', 'model', 'page']`).

**Test Case Breakdown**

1. **No Length Check**: The test code uses the `some()` method to check if any of the slug keys are not in the excluded list. This approach is concise and easy to read.
	* Pros: Simple, readable, and efficient for small arrays.
	* Cons: May perform poorly for large arrays due to the overhead of iterating over all elements using `some()`.
2. **Length Check**: The test code uses an explicit length check by comparing the number of elements in `filtersSlugKeys` with a hardcoded value (3).
	* Pros: Can be faster for large arrays, as it avoids the iteration overhead of `some()`.
	* Cons: More verbose and less readable than the `some()` approach.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The test code is self-contained and only relies on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features**

None of the special JS features (like async/await, generators, or web workers) are used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When writing microbenchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Array size: The test case uses a relatively small array for `filtersSlugKeys`. For larger arrays, the performance differences between these approaches may become more pronounced.
* Browser and environment variations: The benchmark result is reported for Chrome 126 on a Mac OS X system. Testing across different browsers and environments can help ensure that the findings are representative of broader use cases.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to consider when approaching similar benchmarking scenarios include:

1. Using `every()` instead of `some()`, which would perform the opposite check (i.e., verifying that all elements in `filtersSlugKeys` are included in the excluded list).
2. Using a more efficient data structure, like a Set, to store the excluded values for faster lookups.
3. Adding additional complexity to the test case, such as multiple arrays or nested loops, to simulate real-world scenarios.

These alternatives can help you explore different optimization strategies and identify performance bottlenecks in your code.

Related benchmarks:

Nathans other facet test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: no length check vs length check

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

no length check

length check

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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