Benchmark: Memoziation vs. Immutable.get()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.1/immutable.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/reselect/2.5.4/reselect.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var openTabs = Immutable.List();

for (i=0; i < 10; i++) {
  openTabs.push(i);
}

var selector = Reselect.createSelector([
  function(obj) {
    return obj;
  }
],
  function(obj){
	return obj.get(7);
  }
);

selector(openTabs); // gotta cache the value before running the test!

Tests:

openTabs.get()
openTabs.get(7);
selector
selector(openTabs);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
openTabs.get()
selector

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The main goal of this benchmark is to compare two approaches:

1. **Immutable.get()**: This approach uses Immutable.js's `get()` method, which returns a new value without modifying the original array.
2. **Memoized Selector (Reselect)**: This approach creates a memoized selector using Reselect.js, which caches the result of the `selector` function so that it can be reused instead of recalculating it every time.

**Options Compared:**

* **Immutable.get()**: Uses Immutable.js to retrieve a value from an array.
* **Memoized Selector (Reselect)**: Creates a memoized selector using Reselect.js, which caches the result of the `selector` function.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Immutable.get():**
	+ Pros:
		- Efficient for small arrays or single-value lookups.
		- Simple to implement.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of creating a new value.
		- Doesn't cache results, which can lead to repeated calculations.
* **Memoized Selector (Reselect):**
	+ Pros:
		- Caches results, reducing calculation time and improving performance for repeatable lookups.
		- Can handle complex selectors with multiple dependencies.
	+ Cons:
		- More complex to implement, especially for large or nested data structures.
		- May require additional setup and configuration.

**Library Used:**
Immutable.js is a library that provides immutable data structures and algorithms. It's designed for predictable and efficient data processing, making it suitable for this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The benchmark uses the `Reselect.createSelector()` function, which is a higher-order function (HOF) that creates a memoized selector. The HOF takes two arguments:

1. An array of functions that describe the dependencies.
2. A function that describes the computation to perform.

In this case, the dependencies are two simple functions (`function(obj) { return obj; }` and `function(obj){ return obj.get(7); }`). The computation is to call `get(7)` on the result of the first dependency.

**Other Alternatives:**
Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a simple array index lookup instead of Immutable.js or Reselect.
* Implementing custom memoization using a cache, such as an object with cached values.
* Using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality, like Redux or MobX.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. This benchmark aims to compare two popular approaches for caching results in data processing, highlighting their pros and cons.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
openTabs.get()	11517059.0 Ops/sec
selector	1893789.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Memoziation vs. Immutable.get() (version: 4)

Is it worth creating a memoized selector when needing to re-run Immutable.get()?

Comparing performance of: openTabs.get() vs selector

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

openTabs.get()

selector

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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