Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ddddadsad
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
sss vs fff
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus']
Tests:
sss
let a = false; if(array.includes('sausage')) a = true;
fff
let a = false; if(array['sausage']) a = true;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
sss
fff
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 do my best to explain the provided benchmarking test. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains metadata about the benchmark, such as its name and description. However, in this case, the "Description" field is set to null, which means no additional information is available. The script preparation code is provided: `var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus']`. This code defines a JavaScript array containing three string elements. It appears that this array will be used as a test data structure for the benchmark. The HTML preparation code is also provided, but it's empty (`null`). This suggests that no HTML-related setup or configuration is required for this benchmark. **Individual Test Cases** There are two individual test cases defined: 1. `let a = false; if(array.includes('sausage')) a = true;` 2. `let a = false; if(array['sausage']) a = true;` These test cases are designed to measure the performance of the JavaScript engine in performing specific operations. **Option Comparison** The two test cases compare the performance of using the `includes()` method versus accessing an array element by its index (`array['sausage']`) with dot notation (`array['sausage']`). Here's a brief analysis of each approach: * `includes()`: This method returns a boolean value indicating whether the specified element is present in the array. In modern JavaScript, this method is implemented using a binary search algorithm, which has an average time complexity of O(n). However, due to the way arrays are optimized in most engines, this method can be faster than accessing an element by its index. * `array['sausage']`: This approach involves using dot notation to access the array element directly. While this is a valid syntax, it's not as efficient as using the `includes()` method or accessing elements by their index. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: * `includes()`: + Pros: Fast average time complexity (O(n)), optimized for modern JavaScript engines. + Cons: May be slower than direct access in some cases, due to the overhead of binary search. * `array['sausage']`: + Pros: Direct access, potentially faster than `includes()` in some cases. + Cons: Less efficient than using the `includes()` method or accessing elements by their index. **Library and Special Features** In this benchmark, no libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that the `includes()` method is a part of the ECMAScript standard (section 22.1.3), which ensures compatibility across different JavaScript engines. There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for measuring array access performance could include: * Using `indexOf()` instead of `includes()` * Accessing elements by their index directly (e.g., `array[1]`) * Using a custom implementation to measure the time complexity * Measuring the performance of other array operations, such as `forEach()`, `map()`, or `reduce()`. Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific use case and requirements of the benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
length -1 vs last
indexOf vs _.indexOf
reduce me test 000009
IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?