Benchmark: Map from .reduce vs Map from .map vs Map from generator function

Script Preparation code:

var arr10k = Array.from(Array(10000)).map((x, i) => ({ x1: i, x2: i * 2, x4: i * 4 }));

function* getItems() {
    for (const x of arr10k) {
        yield [x.x1, x];
    }
}

Tests:

Map from .reduce
arr10k.reduce((acc, x) => acc.set(x.x1, x), new Map());
Map from .map
new Map(arr10k.map(x => [x.x1, x]));
Map from generator function
new Map(getItems());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map from .reduce
Map from .map
Map from generator function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 11; M2101K6G) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.115 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 92 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Map from .reduce	716.3 Ops/sec
Map from .map	525.7 Ops/sec
Map from generator function	471.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents three microbenchmarks that test the performance of mapping over an array in JavaScript using different approaches:

1. **Map.from.reduce()**: This benchmark tests the performance of creating a Map from an array by reducing it, where each element of the array is mapped to another value.
2. **Map.from.map()**: This benchmark tests the performance of creating a Map from an array by mapping over the array and then passing the resulting array to the `Map` constructor.
3. **Map.from.generator function**: This benchmark tests the performance of creating a Map from an array using a generator function.

**Options compared:**

* `Map.from.reduce()`: uses the `reduce()` method to iterate over the array, where each element is mapped to another value and the resulting values are collected into a Map.
* `Map.from.map()`: uses the `map()` method to create a new array with transformed elements, which is then passed to the `Map` constructor.
* `Map.from.generator function`: uses a generator function (`getItems()`) to yield values from the array, which are then collected into a Map.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Map.from.reduce()**:
	* Pros: concise and easy to read code.
	* Cons: may be less efficient than other approaches due to the overhead of the `reduce()` method.
2. **Map.from.map()**:
	* Pros: can be more readable and easier to understand for developers familiar with array transformations.
	* Cons: creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive for large datasets.
3. **Map.from.generator function**:
	* Pros: allows for lazy evaluation and potential performance benefits due to generator functions being less memory-intensive than arrays.
	* Cons: requires additional understanding of generators and their usage.

In general, the choice between these approaches depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. If readability is more important than raw performance, `Map.from.map()` might be a good choice. However, if memory efficiency or raw performance are crucial, `Map.from.generator function` or `Map.from.reduce()` might be more suitable.

**Library:**

None of these benchmarks explicitly uses any external libraries beyond the standard JavaScript `Array`, `Map`, and `Generator` functions.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special JavaScript features or syntaxes are used in these benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

Map from .reduce vs Map from .map vs Map from generator function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map from .reduce vs Map from .map vs Map from generator function

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Map from .reduce

Map from .map

Map from generator function

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):