Benchmark: Math.max with apply vs spread vs reduce 2

Script Preparation code:

var arr = []
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  arr.push(Math.random() * i)
}

Tests:

Max with apply
Math.max.apply(Math, arr)
Max with spread operator
Math.max(...arr)
Reduce
arr.reduce((a, b) => Math.max(a, b))
Reduce directly
arr.reduce((prev, current) => current > prev ? current : prev)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Max with apply
Max with spread operator
Reduce
Reduce directly

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare three different methods for finding the maximum value in an array:

1. `Math.max.apply(Math, arr)`
2. `Math.max(...arr)` (using the spread operator)
3. `arr.reduce((a, b) => Math.max(a, b))`
4. `arr.reduce((prev, current) => current > prev ? current : prev)`

These methods are compared to determine which one is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two main options:

1. **Array Iteration**: Using a traditional for loop to iterate over the array and find the maximum value (`Math.max.apply(Math, arr)`).
2. **Spread Operator**: Using the spread operator (`...arr`) to pass the array elements as individual arguments to `Math.max`.
3. **Reduce Method**: Using the `reduce` method with an anonymous callback function to find the maximum value in the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array Iteration (Math.max.apply())**
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient due to the overhead of calling `apply` and iterating over the array.
		+ Not as concise or expressive as other methods.
2. **Spread Operator (Math.max(...))**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive than traditional array iteration.
		+ Can be faster due to reduced overhead compared to `apply`.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly with arrays of different lengths or data types.
3. **Reduce Method**
	* Pros: Concise, expressive, and can be more efficient than traditional array iteration.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires understanding of the `reduce` method's syntax and behavior.
		+ May have performance implications if not implemented correctly.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it's likely that a custom script or utility is being used to generate random arrays for testing.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The spread operator (`...arr`) is a relatively new feature introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015). It allows elements from an array to be passed as individual arguments to a function. This benchmark compares the performance of using the spread operator with traditional array iteration and the `reduce` method.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for finding the maximum value in an array include:

1. Using `Math.max()` with multiple arguments (e.g., `Math.max(...arr)`)
2. Implementing a custom loop or recursive function to iterate over the array.
3. Using other methods, such as `forEach()`, `map()`, or `every()`, although these may not be as efficient for this specific use case.

Keep in mind that benchmark results can vary depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine being used.

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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Max with apply	220983.8 Ops/sec
Max with spread operator	224616.2 Ops/sec
Reduce	13692.2 Ops/sec
Reduce directly	681901.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.max with apply vs spread vs reduce 2 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the Math.max.apply method

Comparing performance of: Max with apply vs Max with spread operator vs Reduce vs Reduce directly

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Max with apply

Max with spread operator

Reduce

Reduce directly

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):