Benchmark: MinMax comparison 2

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, null, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99];

Tests:

Reduce
const getMin = (a, b) => a === null || (b !== null && a > b) ? b : a; const getMax = (a, b) => a === null || (b !== null && a < b) ? b : a; const getMixMax = (array) => array.reduce( ({ min, max }, value) => ({ min: getMin(min, value), max: getMax(max, value), }), { min: null, max: null }, ); const mixMax = getMixMax(arr); console.log(mixMax)
Math + filter
const getMinMax = data => !data.length ? [0, 0] : [Math.min(...data.filter(value => value !== null)), Math.max(...data.filter(value => value !== null))]; const minMax = getMinMax(arr); console.log(minMax)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Reduce
Math + filter

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents two test cases for comparing different approaches to finding the minimum and maximum values in an array. The tests are designed to measure the performance of these approaches on a specific dataset.

**Test Case 1: Reduce**

This test case uses the `reduce()` method to find the minimum and maximum values in the array. Here's what happens:

* The `getMixMax` function is defined, which takes an array as input.
* Inside `getMixMax`, the `reduce()` method is used to iterate over the array and accumulate the minimum and maximum values in an object.
* The `min` and `max` properties of this object are updated based on the current value being processed.
* Finally, the `mixMax` variable is assigned the result of the `getMixMax` function call.

**Test Case 2: Math + filter**

This test case uses a different approach to find the minimum and maximum values in the array. Here's what happens:

* The `getMinMax` function is defined, which takes an array as input.
* Inside `getMinMax`, the `filter()` method is used to remove any null values from the array.
* Then, the `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` functions are used to find the minimum and maximum values in the filtered array.
* The result of these two function calls is returned by the `getMinMax` function.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Reduce:** This approach has a few advantages:
	+ It's concise and easy to read.
	+ It avoids the need for explicit loops or manual null checks.
	+ However, it may not be as efficient as other approaches due to the overhead of the `reduce()` method.
* **Math + filter:** This approach has some pros:
	+ It's straightforward and easy to understand.
	+ It avoids the use of mutable state (the accumulator object in `reduce()`).
	+ However, it requires more code and may be less concise.

**Library usage:**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. The standard JavaScript functions (`Math.min()`, `Math.max()`) and methods (`Array.prototype.filter()`, `Array.prototype.reduce()`) are used.

**Special JS feature:**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these tests. They rely solely on standard JavaScript constructs.

Now, let's talk about the benchmarking results:

The latest results show that Chrome 91 on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 desktop executes the `Reduce` test case approximately 18% faster than the `Math + filter` test case (79644.42 executions per second vs 74098.03).

**Alternatives:**

Other approaches to finding minimum and maximum values in an array could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.every()` and `Array.prototype.some()` to find all values that satisfy a certain condition.
* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` to iterate over the array and update variables manually.
* Using a custom loop-based approach with manual null checks.

These alternatives might be more suitable for specific use cases or performance-critical applications, but they require more code and may have different trade-offs in terms of readability and maintainability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Reduce	79644.4 Ops/sec
Math + filter	74098.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

MinMax comparison 2 (version: 0)

Check what approach works better for MinMax function

Comparing performance of: Reduce vs Math + filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Reduce

Math + filter

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):