Benchmark: native vs filter

Script Preparation code:

var multiSelectCustom = {};

multiSelectCustom.popUpEntries = ["abc","def","ghi","jkl","mno","pqr","stu","vwx"];
multiSelectCustom.multiSelectSearchQuery = "g";

 multiSelectCustom.stringContains = function(theString,query) {
        var lowerString = theString.trim().toLowerCase();
        var lowerQuery  = query.trim().toLowerCase();
        if ( lowerString.indexOf(lowerQuery) !== -1 ) return true;
        return false;
    };

Tests:

native
var newEntries = []; for ( var i = 0; i < multiSelectCustom.popUpEntries.length; i ++) { if ( multiSelectCustom.stringContains(multiSelectCustom.popUpEntries[i],multiSelectCustom.multiSelectSearchQuery) === true ) { newEntries.push(multiSelectCustom.popUpEntries[i]); } } multiSelectCustom.filteredEntries = newEntries;
filter
multiSelectCustom.filteredEntries = multiSelectCustom.popUpEntries.filter(word => multiSelectCustom.stringContains(word, multiSelectCustom.multiSelectSearchQuery));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
filter

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array of strings based on a search query:

1. **Native Approach**: This approach uses a custom function `stringContains` to check if a string contains the search query.
2. **Filter Method**: This approach uses the built-in `filter()` method of JavaScript arrays.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches in filtering an array of strings.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native Approach**:
	+ Pros: Can be optimized for specific use cases, potentially faster than filter() due to native code execution.
	+ Cons: Requires custom implementation of stringContains function, which can add overhead.
* **Filter Method**:
	+ Pros: Native implementation, easy to understand and maintain, works well with most JavaScript arrays.
	+ Cons: May be slower than native approach due to overhead of using a built-in method.

**Library/ Framework Used**

The benchmark uses no external libraries or frameworks. It's a simple comparison of two built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned.

Now, let's look at some alternatives:

* **Regex**: Instead of using the custom `stringContains` function, you could use regular expressions to achieve similar results.
* **Array.prototype.some()**: Another approach to filter an array is by using the `some()` method with a callback function. This method returns true if any element in the array passes the test.
* **Native V8 Optimizations**: Depending on the specific JavaScript engine and version, native optimizations may be available that can improve performance.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `multiSelectCustom` with two properties:

* `popUpEntries`: an array of strings
* `multiSelectSearchQuery`: a search query string
* `stringContains`: a custom function to check if a string contains the search query

The benchmark prepares this object before running the tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a single execution that runs either the native approach or the filter method, and measures its performance.

In the given JSON data:

* The first test case ("native") executes the custom `stringContains` function to filter the array.
* The second test case ("filter") uses the built-in `filter()` method with a callback function.

Related benchmarks:

native vs filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs filter

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

filter

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):