Benchmark: String process - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];

for (var i = 0; i < 30000000; i++) {
    if (Math.random() > 0.8) {
        data.push('\n');
    }

    data.push(`   ${Math.random()}  `);
}

Tests:

Map Filter
var result = data .map(line => line.trim()) .filter(line => line !== '');
For
var result = []; for (var line of data) { line = line.trim(); if (line === '') { continue; } result.push(line); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map Filter
For

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'll break down the provided benchmark and its various components to explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The `Script Preparation Code` is responsible for generating the input data used in the benchmark. It creates an array `data` with 30,000,000 elements, where each element has a 20% chance of being a newline character (`\n`) followed by a random string and some whitespace.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches to process the `data` array:

1. **Map Filter**: This approach uses the Array.prototype.map() method to create a new array with the trimmed elements, followed by the Array.prototype.filter() method to remove any empty strings.
2. **For Loop**: This approach uses a traditional for loop to iterate over the `data` array, trimming each element and pushing it to a result array if it's not an empty string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Map Filter**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Less prone to errors due to its immutability

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array
* Requires modern JavaScript engines to support Array.prototype.map() and Array.prototype.filter()

**For Loop**

Pros:

* May be faster due to the lack of overhead from creating a new array
* Works with older JavaScript engines that don't support Array.prototype.map() and Array.prototype.filter()

Cons:

* More verbose code, potentially leading to errors
* Less readable due to its complexity

**Library: Lodash (inferred)**

The `map()` and `filter()` methods used in the Map Filter approach are likely part of the Lodash library. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object creation, and more.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing two different approaches to process an array.

**Other Alternatives**

For the `Map Filter` approach:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of `Array.prototype.map()`
* Implementing the filtering logic manually without using a library like Lodash

For the `For Loop` approach:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` or another iteration method
* Using a more modern JavaScript engine that supports the `for...of` loop for iterating over arrays

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the benchmark's results, so it's essential to test them carefully.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

String process (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map Filter vs For

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map Filter

For

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):