Benchmark: Seek & Destroy - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

HashTable
const array = [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3]; const itemsToRemove = [2, 3]; var hashtable = [], diff = []; for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { hashtable[array[i]] = true; } for (var i = 0; i < itemsToRemove.length; i++) { if (hashtable[itemsToRemove[i]]) { delete hashtable[itemsToRemove[i]]; } } for (var k in hashtable) { diff.push(k); }
Filter
const array = [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3]; const itemsToRemove = [2, 3]; array.filter(el => !itemsToRemove.includes(el));
ForLoop
const array = [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3]; const itemsToRemove = [2, 3]; var i, la = a.length, res = []; for (i = 0; i < la; i++) { if (itemsToRemove.indexOf(array[i]) === -1) res.push(a[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
HashTable
Filter
ForLoop

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.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The "Seek & Destroy" benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript arrays in various operations: removing elements using different approaches (Filter, ForLoop, and HashTable).

**Options Compared**

1. **Filter**: This approach uses the `filter()` method to create a new array with only the elements that do not match the specified value. In this case, it removes elements from the original array.
2. **ForLoop**: This approach uses a traditional for loop to iterate through the array and push elements to a new array if they are not in the `itemsToRemove` array.
3. **HashTable**: This approach uses an object (hashtable) to store unique elements from the original array, and then iterates through it to create a new array with only the remaining elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Filter**:
	* Pros: concise code, efficient implementation, supports modern browsers.
	* Cons: may not be as efficient for large arrays due to creating a new array.
2. **ForLoop**:
	* Pros: can be more efficient for large arrays since it only iterates through the original array once, and does not create a new array.
	* Cons: more verbose code, may not be as readable.
3. **HashTable**:
	* Pros: can be efficient for large arrays since it uses an object to store unique elements, which has fast lookup times.
	* Cons: requires creating an additional object, which can have overhead.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses a few libraries and special features:

* None explicit libraries are used in this benchmark.
* The `filter()` method is a built-in JavaScript method for arrays.
* The `includes()` method is also a built-in JavaScript method for arrays (used in the `ForLoop` approach).

**Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

* Performance: For very large arrays or performance-critical code, HashTable might be more efficient. However, for smaller arrays or non-performance critical code, Filter might be a better choice due to its concise and readable implementation.
* Readability: For code that needs to be readable and maintainable, Filter might be the best option.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches include:

* Using `slice()` method with `filter()` (similar to Filter)
* Using a traditional loop with array iteration (similar to ForLoop)
* Using other data structures like Sets or Maps (alternative to HashTable)

In summary, this benchmark provides a comparison of three different approaches for removing elements from an array: Filter, ForLoop, and HashTable. Each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice depends on performance, readability, and specific use case requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Seek & Destroy (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: HashTable vs Filter vs ForLoop

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

HashTable

Filter

ForLoop

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):