Benchmark: colorizeCell() test 3

Script Preparation code:

function colorizeCell(e){
return e?"Plus"==e?'<td class="table-danger text-center">Plus model only</td>':'<td class="table-danger text-center">&#10003;</td>':'<td class="table-danger text-center">&cross;</td>'}
function cc(e){return`<td class="table-${e?"success":"danger"} text-center">${e?"Plus"===e?"Plus model only":"&#10003;":"&cross;"}</td>`}
function buildTableRow(e){return`<td class="table-${e?"success":"danger"} text-center">${e?"Plus"===e?"Plus model only":"&#10003;":"&cross;"}</td>`}

// ---

var testData = [ null, '1', '2', '3', 'Plus' ];
var testData2 = [];
var i;

// 5000 items
for (i=0; i<1000; i++)
{
    testData2 = testData2.concat(testData);
}

Tests:

colorizeCell()
for (i of testData2) { colorizeCell(i); }
cc()
for (i of testData2) { cc(i); }
buildTableRow()
for (i of testData2) { buildTableRow(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
colorizeCell()
cc()
buildTableRow()

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 what is being tested on the provided JSON and explain the different approaches, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides three JavaScript functions:

1. `colorizeCell(e)`: Returns an HTML string to render a table cell with either "Plus model only", "!", or "&cross;" based on the input `e`.
2. `cc(e)`: Similar to `colorizeCell`, but returns a single HTML element instead of a full-fledged table cell.
3. `buildTableRow(e)`: Returns an HTML string for building a table row with a similar logic to `colorizeCell`.

**Options Compared**

The three functions are compared in terms of performance, specifically:

1. **`for...of` loop**: Using the `for...of` loop to iterate over the `testData2` array.
2. **Direct function call**: Calling each function directly with the test data as an argument.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`for...of` loop**:
	* Pros: Can take advantage of optimized iteration in modern browsers, potentially faster execution.
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation and garbage collection overhead due to the array concatenation, leading to slower performance for large datasets.
2. **Direct function call**:
	* Pros: Potentially faster execution since it avoids the overhead of iteration and can take advantage of compiler optimizations.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the repeated calls to the functions, especially if they are computationally expensive.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Browser-specific differences**: The benchmark results show different executions per second for each browser (Chrome 79), which suggests that there may be browser-specific differences in performance or optimization.
2. **Device and operating system variations**: The benchmark results also mention specific device platforms (Desktop) and operating systems (Windows), which could impact performance due to hardware or software configurations.

**Library Usage**

None of the functions rely on external libraries, so no special library is used.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features like:

1. **Template literals**: Used in `cc(e)` and `buildTableRow(e)` to create HTML strings.
2. **For...of loop**: Used in all three benchmark definitions to iterate over the `testData2` array.
3. **Arrow functions**: Not used explicitly, but implied by the use of function expressions.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches could include:

1. **Using a more efficient iteration method**, such as `forEach()` or `map()`, instead of the `for...of` loop.
2. **Caching or memoizing results** to reduce the number of function calls and improve performance.
3. **Optimizing the functions themselves**, using techniques like inlining, dead code elimination, or function splitting.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not necessarily provide better performance results, as they depend on various factors such as the specific use case, browser support, and hardware configurations.

Related benchmarks:

colorizeCell() test 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: colorizeCell() vs cc() vs buildTableRow()

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

colorizeCell()

cc()

buildTableRow()

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):