Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
dennis testtest testtt4e5grgergregfewwef
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
freeefr vs fwefwfe
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
window.json = [ { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, }, { documentId: 'dfwefwef232f32f-wefew', folderId: 'fweweeeffef23233ff2323', isRemovable: true, isReSendable: true, } ]
Tests:
freeefr
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(window.json))
fwefwfe
window.json.map(v => ({...v}));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
freeefr
fwefwfe
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 explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided `benchmark_definition` is a JSON object that defines two individual test cases: 1. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(window.json))` 2. `window.json.map(v => ({...v}))` These two expressions are used to transform the `window.json` array, which contains multiple objects with similar properties (`documentId`, `folderId`, `isRemovable`, and `isReSendable`). **What's being tested?** The benchmark is testing the performance of these two expressions in different browsers: 1. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(window.json))`: This expression creates a deep copy of the `window.json` array using the `JSON.parse()` method. 2. `window.json.map(v => ({...v}))`: This expression uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method to create a new array with transformed objects. The benchmark measures the performance of these expressions in terms of the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond). **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Deep copying using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`**: This option uses a library function to perform a deep copy of the array. 2. **Transforming objects using `Array.prototype.map()`**: This option uses an iterative approach to transform each object in the array. **Pros and cons** **Deep Copying using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`:** Pros: * Easy to read and understand * Fast performance Cons: * Uses a library function, which may have overhead * May not be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., large arrays) **Transforming objects using `Array.prototype.map()`**:** Pros: * Native JavaScript implementation, likely optimized for performance * Can handle large arrays efficiently Cons: * Less readable than the deep copying option * May require more iterations to achieve the same result **Latest benchmark result** The latest benchmark result shows that both expressions have similar performance (ExecutionsPerSecond) across different browsers. However, it's essential to note that the results may vary depending on the specific use case and array size. In summary, the benchmark is testing the performance of two expressions for transforming an array in JavaScript: one using a deep copy library function (`JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`) and the other using an iterative approach with `Array.prototype.map()`. The results indicate that both options have similar performance but may have different trade-offs in terms of readability, overhead, and optimization.
Related benchmarks:
Check existence
dennis testtest testtt4e5grgergregfewweffwefwefew
js-map/obj
for vs filter 1111
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?