Benchmark: Immutable JS valueseq vs values

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/4.0.0-rc.12/immutable.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testMap = Immutable.Map();
for (i=0;i<1000;i++) {
  const key = 'key'+i;
  const value = 'value'+i;
  testMap = testMap.set(key, value);
}

Tests:

valueSeq
for (i=0;i<1000;i++) { const result = testMap.valueSeq().toArray(); }
values
for (i=0;i<1000;i++) { const result = [...testMap.values()]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
valueSeq
values

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The benchmark being tested is the performance difference between using `valueSeq()` and `values()` methods when traversing an Immutable.js Map in JavaScript.

**Immutable.js**: The library being used in this benchmark is Immutable.js, a popular JavaScript library for creating immutable data structures. Immutable.js provides a way to work with data in a predictable and thread-safe manner, which can be beneficial for applications that require concurrent access or need to ensure data consistency.

In the benchmark preparation code, an Immutable Map is created using `Immutable.Map()`, and then populated with 1000 key-value pairs using a loop. The script then attempts to traverse the map's values using both `valueSeq()` and `values()` methods.

**Options Compared**: The two options being compared are:

1. **`valueSeq()`**: This method returns an iterator over the map's values, which can be converted to an array using `toArray()`. The idea behind this approach is that it might provide better performance since it only iterates over the values once.
2. **`values()`**: This method returns a direct iteration over the map's values, without the need for converting them to an array.

**Pros and Cons**:

* **`valueSeq()`**:
	+ Pros: Only iterates over the values once, which might lead to better performance in some cases.
	+ Cons: Requires conversion to an array using `toArray()`, which can be expensive for large datasets.
* **`values()`**:
	+ Pros: Direct iteration over the values, no need for conversion to an array.
	+ Cons: Iterates over the values multiple times, which might lead to slower performance.

**Other Considerations**: It's worth noting that the performance difference between these two approaches can depend on various factors, such as:

* The size of the dataset
* The type of data being stored in the map (e.g., strings, numbers, objects)
* The specific use case and requirements of the application

In general, `valueSeq()` might be a better choice when you need to perform some operation on each value in the iteration, whereas `values()` is more suitable when you only need to iterate over the values without performing any operations.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**: This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's purely focused on comparing the performance of two different approaches to traversing an Immutable.js Map.

In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between using `valueSeq()` and `values()` methods when traversing an Immutable.js Map in JavaScript. The choice of approach depends on specific use case requirements and can impact performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
valueSeq	38.0 Ops/sec
values	17.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Immutable JS valueseq vs values (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: valueSeq vs values

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

valueSeq

values

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):