Benchmark: GBCR Sequential (2)

Script Preparation code:

function createEl() {
  const el = document.createElement('div');
  el.style.width = 100;
  el.style.height = 100;
  el.style.position = 'relative';
  el.style.x = 10;
  el.style.y = 10;
  return el;
}

const els = [... new Array(10)].map(() => createEl());
window.els = els;
els.forEach(el => document.body.appendChild(el));

Tests:

control
console.log('const');
gbcr one
console.log('const'); window.els[0].getBoundingClientRect();
gbcr all
console.log('const'); window.els.forEach(el => el.getBoundingClientRect());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
control
gbcr one
gbcr all

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is created using MeasureThat.net, which allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark definition is a JSON object that specifies the test case. In this case, there are three test cases:

1. "control": This test case simply logs the string "const" to the console.
2. "gbcr one": This test case logs the string "const" and then calls `window.els[0].getBoundingClientRect()` on the first element in the `els` array.
3. "gbcr all": This test case logs the string "const", loops through the entire `els` array, and calls `el.getBoundingClientRect()` on each element.

**Options being compared**

The options being compared are the performance of calling `getBoundingClientRect()` on individual elements versus looping through an array of elements and calling it on each one. Specifically:

* In "gbcr one", only the first element is called.
* In "gbcr all", all elements in the `els` array are called.

**Pros and cons**

* **"gbcr one"**: This test case may be faster because it only calls `getBoundingClientRect()` on a single element, which can reduce overhead. However, this also means that the performance difference between individual elements versus looping through an array of elements is not captured.
* **"gbcr all"**: This test case captures the performance difference between calling `getBoundingClientRect()` on individual elements versus looping through an array of elements.

However, "gbcr all" may be slower because it loops through the entire array and calls `getBoundingClientRect()` on each element. This can increase overhead due to function call overhead, array iteration, and DOM manipulation.

**Library**

The library used in this benchmark is none explicitly mentioned, but `window.els` suggests that it's using a global variable to store an array of HTML elements. The `getBoundingClientRect()` method is a standard JavaScript API that allows you to get the bounding rectangle of an element on the client-side.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond standard JavaScript and DOM manipulation. There's also no use of modern JavaScript features like ES6 classes, async/await, or Promises.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to measure the performance difference between individual elements versus looping through an array of elements could include:

* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for array iteration
* Using a different data structure, such as a Set or Map, instead of an array
* Using a more efficient DOM manipulation approach, such as using `requestAnimationFrame()` to update the DOM
* Using a virtual DOM or a rendering engine like React or Angular

Keep in mind that these alternatives may change the behavior and performance characteristics of the benchmark, so it's essential to carefully consider the trade-offs when choosing an alternative.

Related benchmarks:

GBCR Sequential (2) (version: 0)

Test the performance of getBoundingClientRect sequential calls.

Comparing performance of: control vs gbcr one vs gbcr all

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

control

gbcr one

gbcr all

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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