Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
fastest vs slowest is backwards
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
should be slower vs should be faster
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
should be slower
const result = [] const ary = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { result.push(ary[i%10] * 2) }
should be faster
const result = []; const ary = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { result.push(ary[i%10] * 2) }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
should be slower
should be faster
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is an empty object, which means that the user hasn't specified any specific test cases or scripts to run. The only information provided is a brief name for the benchmark ("fastest vs slowest is backwards") and a description (which is null). **Individual Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **"should be slower"** * Script: `const result = []; const ary = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { result.push(ary[i%10] * 2); }` * This script creates an empty array `result` and then loops through the `ary` array 1000 times, pushing the result of `(ary[i%10] * 2)` to the `result` array. 2. **"should be faster"** * Script: `const result = []; const ary = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { result.push(ary[i%10] * 2); }` * This script is similar to the first one, but it loops through the `ary` array only 10 times. **Options being compared** In this benchmark, two options are being compared: 1. **1000 iterations**: The first test case uses a large number of iterations (1000) in its loop. 2. **10 iterations**: The second test case uses a much smaller number of iterations (10) in its loop. **Pros and Cons of each approach** * **Using 1000 iterations**: + Pros: Can help to identify performance issues with the script, especially if it's using many resources or performing complex calculations. + Cons: May not be representative of real-world usage patterns, where iterations are often limited by other constraints (e.g., user input, network latency). * **Using 10 iterations**: + Pros: Can provide a more realistic representation of real-world usage patterns and help identify performance issues that arise from frequent updates to the data. + Cons: May not be able to detect performance issues related to large numbers of iterations. **Library or Framework** There is no explicit mention of any libraries or frameworks being used in these test cases. However, the use of `const` and arrow functions (`=>`) suggests that the code may be written in a modern JavaScript style. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in these test cases. **Other considerations** When interpreting benchmark results, it's essential to consider factors beyond just raw execution speed. For example: * **Memory usage**: How much memory does the script consume during its execution? * **Cache performance**: Does the script benefit from caching frequently accessed data? * **Hardware constraints**: Are there any hardware-related limitations that could impact performance (e.g., CPU architecture, available memory)? **Alternatives** Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript code include: 1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js or Benchmark SU provide a more structured approach to benchmarking and can help ensure consistency across different test environments. 2. **WebAssembly**: WebAssembly is a binary format that allows JavaScript code to be compiled to efficient machine code, which can improve performance in certain contexts. 3. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilers**: Some browsers use JIT compilers to optimize JavaScript code at runtime, which can provide better performance than traditional interpretation.
Related benchmarks:
Division by 1000 vs bitwise shifting approximation (1024)
Date.now() vs new Date() vs performance.now()
Date.now() vs new performance.now()
Math.round vs Bitwise
Date.now() vs. now()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?