Benchmark: 2asdasdasd - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var obj={};
function d(){
  for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++){
    obj[i] = {
      0: 1,
      1: 2,
      2: 3,
      3: 4,
      4: 5,
      5: 6,
      6: 7
    }
  }
};
d();

Tests:

1
Object.values(obj).filter(item => 1 !== item);
2
const devicesAfterDelete = {}; Object.values(obj).forEach((item) => { if (1== item){ } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests two different approaches to filtering objects within a JavaScript array:

**Test Case 1:** `Object.values(obj).filter(item => 1 !== item)`

* **Description:** This approach uses the `Object.values()` method to extract all values from the `obj` object, effectively turning it into an array. Then, it applies the `filter()` method to this array, keeping only the elements that are not equal to `1`.  
* **Pros:** Concise and readable, leverages built-in JavaScript methods for filtering.

**Test Case 2:** 
`const devicesAfterDelete = {}; \r\n Object.values(obj).forEach((item) => {\r\n    if (1== item){\r\n       \r\n    }\r\n });`

* **Description:** This approach iterates through the values of `obj` using `Object.values()` and `forEach()`. However, within the loop, it performs a comparison (`if (1 == item)`) but doesn't actually filter or modify any data structures. 
* **Pros:**  Potentially clearer logic for some developers who are familiar with iterative approaches, although it doesn't actively filter the data.

**Cons of Test Case 2:** The `if` statement within the loop is essentially a no-op. It does not remove or modify any values. This test case seems to be incomplete and might have been intended to perform a different operation within the loop.

**Considerations:**

* **Performance:** In this specific scenario, the `filter()` approach (Test Case 1) is likely to be more efficient because it directly creates a new filtered array without iterating through all elements unnecessarily.
* **Readability:** Both approaches can be considered readable depending on individual preferences. The `filter()` approach might be preferred for its conciseness and explicitness, while the loop-based approach could feel more familiar to developers who prefer iterative patterns.

**Alternatives:**

* Using a loop with an index: Similar to Test Case 2 but explicitly managing an index instead of relying on `forEach()`.
* Utilizing array methods like `map()` or `reduce()`: Depending on the desired outcome, these methods could be more suitable for transforming or summarizing the data.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Related benchmarks:

2asdasdasd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):