Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
every vs set create 100000
(version: 3)
Comparing performance of:
set vs every
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arrayWithDuplicates = new Array(100000).fill('Upper');
Tests:
set
const position = new Set(arrayWithDuplicates);
every
const isOnePosition = arrayWithDuplicates.every(pos => pos === 'Upper');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
set
every
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net! **Benchmark Definition** The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using `Set` (a built-in JavaScript data structure) versus using the `every()` method with a callback function. In the Benchmark Definition JSON, we have: * A script preparation code that creates an array with 100,000 duplicate elements. * An HTML preparation code that is empty, indicating no additional setup is required for the test. * Two test cases: 1. "set": This test case uses a `Set` object to create a new set from the prepared array. 2. "every": This test case uses the `every()` method with a callback function to check if all elements in the prepared array match the expected value ("Upper"). **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **Using a Set**: Creating a new set from an array using the `Set` constructor or the spread operator (`new Set([...])`). This approach is efficient because sets automatically eliminate duplicates and provide fast membership testing. 2. **Using every() with a callback function**: Using the `every()` method to check if all elements in the prepared array match a certain condition (in this case, the value "Upper"). This approach requires iterating over each element and performing a comparison. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: * **Using a Set**: + Pros: - Fast membership testing - Automatic elimination of duplicates - Memory-efficient (sets only store unique elements) + Cons: - May require additional memory for storing the set, especially for large inputs - Not suitable for non-deterministic data or complex logic * **Using every() with a callback function**: + Pros: - Easy to implement and understand - Can be used with non-Set data structures (arrays, objects, etc.) - Suitable for non-deterministic data or complex logic + Cons: - Iteration over each element can be slow for large inputs - Requires extra memory for the array being iterated over **Library and Special JS Feature** In this benchmark, we don't see any specific libraries used. However, `Set` is a built-in JavaScript data structure. No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you were to consider alternative approaches for this benchmark: * Using `Array.prototype.filter()` instead of `every()`: This would be another way to check if all elements match the expected value, but it might be slightly slower due to the overhead of creating a new array. * Using `Array.from()` or `reduce()` with an initial value: These methods could be used to create a set-like data structure, but they might not offer the same performance benefits as using `Set` directly. Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have similar trade-offs in terms of performance and memory usage compared to the original Set-based approach.
Related benchmarks:
Set vs Array for unique list
lodash uniq vs spread new Set() medium size
Set array expansion
Set array expansion Part 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?