Benchmark: includes_test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

let currentId = 0;
var soundtrack = [];

do {
	soundtrack.push({
      id: currentId,
      audio: 'audio',
      isLoop: false,
      phases: {
        fromId: currentId,
        toId: currentId
      }
    });
  currentId = currentId + 1;
} while(currentId <= 100);

Tests:

test reduce and includes
const listPillarPhase = soundtrack.reduce((list, track) => { return [ ...list, track.phases.fromId, track.phases.toId ]; }, []); listPillarPhase.includes(100);
test find
soundtrack.find(track => { return track.phases.fromId === 100 || track.phases.toId === 100; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test reduce and includes
test find

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, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to test two JavaScript functions: `reduce` with an `includes` method, and `find`. The benchmark creates a soundtrack array with 100 tracks, each having a unique ID, audio, and phase information. The `reduce` function is used to create a new array containing the IDs from the phases, while the `includes` method checks if a specific ID exists in that array.

**Test Case 1: `test reduce and includes`**

This test case uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to create an array of IDs from the phases. The `includes()` method is then used to check if a specific ID (100) exists in that array. The test case measures the execution time of this process.

**Test Case 2: `test find`**

This test case uses the `Array.prototype.find()` method to search for an object in the soundtrack array where the `fromId` or `toId` property matches a specific value (100). The test case measures the execution time of this process.

**Library Used: None**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine being used (e.g., V8) has its own internal optimizations and methods for array manipulation and searching.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax: `includes()` method**

The `includes()` method is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10). It allows you to check if an element exists in an array. The benchmark uses this method to measure its performance.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **`reduce()` with `includes()`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient for large arrays, as it avoids the need for a separate loop or search function.
	* Cons: May have slower startup times due to the overhead of the `reduce()` method, and may not be as cache-friendly as other approaches.
2. **`find()`**:
	* Pros: Typically faster than using `includes()` with `reduce()`, as it uses a more optimized internal algorithm for searching arrays.
	* Cons: May require more memory, as it needs to store the entire array in memory.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Cache Friendliness**: The performance of these benchmarks may be influenced by cache behavior. For example, if the `reduce()` method is called repeatedly with a large array, it's possible that the results are cached, which could affect performance.
2. **Garbage Collection**: JavaScript engines have different garbage collection strategies, which can impact performance. For example, some engines may perform more frequent garbage collection, which could slow down benchmarks.

**Alternatives**

1. **Using `indexOf()` method instead of `includes()`**: This approach would be slower than using the `includes()` method, as it requires a separate loop or search function.
2. **Using a different array manipulation library**: There are several libraries available that provide optimized array manipulation functions, such as Lodash or Array.prototype extensions.
3. **Using a different searching algorithm**: Other algorithms, such as linear search or binary search, could be used instead of `find()`.

In conclusion, the benchmark highlights the trade-offs between using `reduce()` with `includes()` and `find()`. While `includes()` may be faster for small arrays, `find()` is typically more efficient for larger arrays. The choice of approach ultimately depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

includes_test (version: 0)

test includes and reduce

Comparing performance of: test reduce and includes vs test find

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test reduce and includes

test find

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):