Benchmark: Get max from an array of numbers (Math.max vs. iteration) V3

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [...Array(500)].map(() => Math.floor(Math.random() * 100000));

Tests:

Math.max
return Math.max(...arr);
Reduce
return arr.reduce((maxi, curr) => maxi < curr ? curr : maxi, -1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max
Reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to find the maximum value in an array of numbers: using `Math.max` and using the `reduce()` method.

**Test Case 1: Math.max**

This test case uses the built-in `Math.max` function, which returns the largest of zero or more numbers.

The script preparation code generates a random array of 500 integers between 0 and 100000. This is done to ensure that the benchmark results are representative of real-world scenarios.

**Pros of using Math.max:**

1. **Concise**: The `Math.max` function is concise and easy to read.
2. **Well-established**: It's a well-established and widely supported function in JavaScript.

**Cons of using Math.max:**

1. **Single-purpose**: It only finds the maximum value, which might not be useful in all scenarios.
2. **Limited control**: There's limited control over how the function handles edge cases or NaN values.

**Test Case 2: Reduce**

This test case uses the `reduce()` method to find the maximum value in the array. The reduce function applies a specified function against an accumulator and each element of the array (from left to right) to reduce it to a single output value.

**Pros of using Reduce:**

1. **Flexibility**: The reduce function can be used for various purposes, such as finding the minimum or sum of values.
2. **Control**: It provides more control over how edge cases and NaN values are handled.

**Cons of using Reduce:**

1. **Less concise**: The `reduce()` method requires creating an initial accumulator value and writing a function to accumulate it.
2. **More complex**: It might be less readable for those unfamiliar with the reduce function.

**Library Used:**

The `Math.max` function does not rely on any external libraries, as it's a built-in JavaScript function.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

This benchmark uses no special features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript. No ES6+ features like arrow functions, template literals, or classes are used.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **Array.prototype.max()**: In some browsers and engines, you can use `Array.prototype.max()` to find the maximum value in an array.
2. **Lodash library's maxBy() function**: If you prefer a more concise solution, you can use the `maxBy` function from the Lodash library, which finds the maximum value based on a specified function.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a fair comparison of two approaches to finding the maximum value in an array. The results will help users determine which approach is faster and more suitable for their specific use cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.max	1163436.4 Ops/sec
Reduce	2842652.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Get max from an array of numbers (Math.max vs. iteration) V3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.max vs Reduce

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max

Reduce

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):