new Set(arr) seems faster #9
Description
- There where no benchmarks to be found.
- installing and executing the function didn't show any numbers (benchmark results #7)
- updating benchmarked and executing the test was alarming too me cuz i wasn't sure if the mutable function would change the fixture (cuz i didn't get an array in my test function)
- so i conducted my own test to se how this compared to using native new Set(iterable)
Vanilla source code (benchmark)
/**
* Source: http://jsperf.com/array-unique2/15
*/
function randomize(n) {
var values = [];
var rand;
while (n--) {
rand = Math.random() * n * 2 | 0;
if (rand < values.length) {
values.push(values[rand]);
}
else {
switch (Math.random() * 3 | 0) {
case 0:
values.push(Math.random() * 1e10 | 0);
break;
case 1:
values.push((Math.random() * 1e32).toString(36));
break;
case 2:
values.push({});
break;
}
}
}
return values;
};
function unique(arr) {
var len = arr.length;
var i = -1;
while (i++ < len) {
var j = i + 1;
for (; j < arr.length; ++j) {
if (arr[i] === arr[j]) {
arr.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
}
return arr;
};
function uniqueImmutable(arr) {
var arrLen = arr.length;
var newArr = new Array(arrLen);
for (var i = 0; i < arrLen; i++) {
newArr[i] = arr[i];
}
return unique(newArr);
};
function set(arr) {
return [...new Set(arr)];
}
function setWithoutCasting(arr) {
return new Set(arr);
}
for (let arr of [randomize(10000), randomize(500), randomize(10)]) {
console.group(`Array(${arr.length})`)
for (let fn of [unique, uniqueImmutable, set, setWithoutCasting]) {
let runs = 0
let startCountingAt = performance.now() + 3000 // 3 sec later
let stopAt = performance.now() + 5000 // 5 sec later
let now = performance.now()
while (now < stopAt) {
// Pre run it a few times
if (now > startCountingAt) {
runs++;
}
fn([...arr]) // copy the array for each test and fn (unique mutates)
now = performance.now();
}
console.log(`executed "${fn.name}(arr)" ${runs} times`)
}
console.groupEnd(`Array(${arr.length})`)
}you can loop over Set the exact same way as with an Array, both Set and Array's have forEach and for..of loop support.
According to my benchmarks Set seems to be the way to go, it runs faster than your unique function in FF, Blink, Safari and NodeJS.
Need some numbers?
(higher number = faster)
Chrome v84
Safari v14
node v14.2.0
new Set(iterable) is so small, don't need any 3th party modules, it's built in and dose not offer readability for performance that i think this should be the recommended way for all who seeks for a solution