Benchmark: join vs map js - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
let i = 0
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
  array.push(`${i}번째 수`);
}

Tests:

reduce
const arrayString = array.reduce((accu, curr, index) => { if (!index) accu += curr.krName; else accu += `, ${curr.krName}`; return accu; }, '');
join
const arrayString = array.join(', ');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	249.2 Ops/sec
join	417.4 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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for joining an array of strings in JavaScript:

1. `join()` method
2. `reduce()` function with a custom callback

**Options Compared:**

* **`join()` Method:** This method uses the built-in `Array.prototype.join()` method, which concatenates all elements in the array into a single string.
* **`reduce()` Function with Custom Callback:** This approach uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method with a custom callback function to iterate over the array and concatenate its elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **`join()` Method:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to use and intuitive.
		- Fast, as it is implemented in native code.
	+ Cons:
		- Limited control over the concatenation process (e.g., no option to skip empty strings).
		- May not be suitable for large datasets or complex data structures.
* **`reduce()` Function with Custom Callback:**
	+ Pros:
		- Offers more control over the concatenation process (e.g., skipping empty strings, handling errors).
		- Suitable for large datasets and complex data structures.
	+ Cons:
		- More complex to use, especially for beginners.
		- May incur a performance overhead due to the additional function call.

**Library Used:**
None explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark. However, `krName` appears to be a custom property added by the script preparation code. It's likely used as a placeholder or example value.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The `reduce()` method is a native JavaScript function, so no special syntax or features are required for this test case. However, it's worth noting that the `join()` method also relies on the `Array.prototype.join()` method, which might be considered a part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Other Alternatives:**
If you're looking for alternative approaches to join arrays of strings in JavaScript, consider the following:

* Using `Array.prototype.concat()`, `Array.prototype.splice()`, or other array manipulation methods.
* Utilizing third-party libraries like Lodash (`_.join()`), Underscore (`_.chain().map().reduce()`), or Moment.js (`moment(strings.join(', '))`).
* Implementing a custom string concatenation function, such as `concatenateStrings(array)`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might offer different trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

join vs map js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs join

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

join

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):