Benchmark: test0001 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = "";
var i;
var sArr = [];

Tests:

Array reduce
for (i = 1000; i > 0; i--) { sArr = [ ...sArr, ...['My String'] ] } str = sArr.reduce((a, v) => a += `${v} `, '')
Array join
for (i = 1000; i > 0; i--) { sArr = [ ...sArr, ...['My String'] ] } str = sArr.join(" ");
Array toString + replace
for (i = 1000; i > 0; i--) { sArr = [ ...sArr, ...['My String'] ] } str = sArr.toString().replace( ',', ' ');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array reduce
Array join
Array toString + replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 13 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array reduce	8.7 Ops/sec
Array join	3.2 Ops/sec
Array toString + replace	2.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a set of benchmark definitions for measuring performance differences between three approaches: `Array.reduce()`, `Array.join()`, and `Array.toString().replace()`.

**Approach 1: Array.reduce()**

* The benchmark definition uses a simple loop to create an array of 1000 elements, each containing the string "My String". Then, it reduces the array using the `reduce()` method.
* The resulting string is constructed by concatenating all elements in the array using the `+=` operator.

**Pros:**

1. Efficient use of memory: Since only one reference to the string is created, this approach minimizes memory allocations and deallocations.
2. Cache-friendly: The reduction process can be cache-friendly, as the array elements are processed sequentially.

**Cons:**

1. Higher overhead due to function call: `reduce()` involves a function call, which can introduce additional overhead compared to other approaches.
2. Potential for slow performance in certain browsers: Some older or less efficient browsers might struggle with the `reduce()` method.

**Approach 2: Array.join()**

* The benchmark definition is similar to Approach 1, but instead of using `reduce()`, it uses the `join()` method to concatenate all elements in the array.
* The resulting string is constructed by joining all elements in the array with a space character (`" "`).

**Pros:**

1. Simpler and faster than `reduce()`: In many cases, `join()` is faster than `reduce()`, as it avoids the overhead of function calls.
2. More cache-friendly: Joining elements sequentially can be more cache-friendly than processing them in parallel.

**Cons:**

1. Higher memory allocation: Using `join()` requires creating a temporary array to store the joined strings, which can lead to increased memory allocations and deallocations.
2. Potential for slow performance in older browsers: Like `reduce()`, some older or less efficient browsers might struggle with the `join()` method.

**Approach 3: Array.toString().replace()**

* The benchmark definition uses a similar approach to Approach 1, but instead of using `reduce()` or `join()`, it converts the array to a string using the `toString()` method and then replaces commas with spaces using the `replace()` method.
* The resulting string is constructed by concatenating all elements in the array using the `toString()` and `replace()` methods.

**Pros:**

1. Simple and efficient: This approach involves only two simple operations (converting to string and replacing commas).
2. Cache-friendly: The conversion process can be cache-friendly, as the array elements are processed sequentially.

**Cons:**

1. Higher overhead due to function call: The `toString()` method is a function call, which can introduce additional overhead compared to other approaches.
2. Potential for slow performance in older browsers: Like other approaches, this one might struggle with slower or less efficient browsers.

**Library: None**

There are no libraries used in these benchmark definitions.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

None mentioned, but note that the use of spread syntax (`[...sArr, ...['My String']`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to measure performance differences between array processing methods include:

1. `Array.prototype.every()` and `Array.prototype.some()`
2. Using `Map` or `Set` data structures instead of arrays
3. Utilizing parallel processing techniques, such as Web Workers or async/await
4. Measuring performance using other benchmarking libraries, like BenchmarkJS or fast-bench

These alternatives can provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different array processing methods and help developers optimize their code for better performance.

Related benchmarks:

test0001 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array reduce vs Array join vs Array toString + replace

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array reduce

Array join

Array toString + replace

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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