Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
size_compact vs sumBy
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
size_compact vs sum_by
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
window.array = [1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 5];
Tests:
size_compact
const size = _.size(_.compact(window.array)); return size;
sum_by
const size = _.sumBy(window.array, child => (child ? 1 : 0)); return size;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
size_compact
sum_by
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases for you. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to calculate the size of an array with non-zero values: 1. `size_compact`: Uses the `_` object's `compact` function, which removes all falsy values from the array, and then returns the length of the resulting array. 2. `sum_by`: Uses the `_` object's `sumBy` function, which sums up the values in the array by applying a provided callback function to each element. **Options Compared:** The two approaches differ in how they process the input array: * `size_compact` uses `compact`, which removes falsy values from the array. * `sum_by` applies a callback function to each element, effectively counting non-zero values. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach:** 1. **`size_compact`**: * Pros: + Faster, as it only needs to iterate through the true values in the array. + Less memory usage, as it doesn't create a new array with just the non-zero values. * Cons: + May not work correctly for arrays containing zero values or NaNs (Not a Number). + Can be slower if the input array is very large and most elements are falsy. 2. **`sum_by`**: * Pros: + Robust, as it can handle zero values and NaNs without issues. + Allows for more flexibility in terms of how non-zero values are defined (e.g., using a custom callback function). * Cons: + Slower, as it needs to iterate through the entire array and apply the callback function to each element. + More memory usage, as it creates a new array with the results. **Library Used:** The `_` object is likely an alias for Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. The `compact` and `sumBy` functions are part of Lodash's functionality. **Special JS Feature/Syntax:** There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it does utilize ES6-style arrow functions (`=>`) in the callback function passed to `sumBy`. **Alternatives:** Other approaches could be taken to calculate the size of an array with non-zero values, such as: 1. Using `filter` and `length`: `const size = arr.filter(Boolean).length;` 2. Using a custom loop or recursive function. 3. Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `Array.prototype.reduce()`. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not perform better than the original approaches in all scenarios, but they could provide an interesting comparison in terms of performance and readability.
Related benchmarks:
set.has vs. array.includes bigger sample
Array.from(new Set(array)) vs [...new Set(array)]
filtering with Array.prototype.flatMap vs for of loop
filtering with Array.prototype.flatMap vs for of loop vs Array.prototype.map + Array.prototype.filter
Javascript native forEach vs _.forEach
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?