Benchmark: JS Filter vs Reduce vs Foreach

Tests:

Filter
const arr = [{key: "a", value: 0}, {key: "b", value: 0}, {key: "c", value: 1}, {key: "d", value: 0}, {key: "e", value: 1}, {key: "f", value: 1}, {key: "g", value: 0}, {key: "h", value: 1}, {key: "i", value: 0}, {key: "j", value: 1}] arr.filter(item => item.value === 1)
Reduce
const arr = [{key: "a", value: 0}, {key: "b", value: 0}, {key: "c", value: 1}, {key: "d", value: 0}, {key: "e", value: 1}, {key: "f", value: 1}, {key: "g", value: 0}, {key: "h", value: 1}, {key: "i", value: 0}, {key: "j", value: 1}] arr.reduce((acc,item) => { if (item.value === 1) acc.push(item) return acc; }, [])
Foreach
const arr = [{key: "a", value: 0}, {key: "b", value: 0}, {key: "c", value: 1}, {key: "d", value: 0}, {key: "e", value: 1}, {key: "f", value: 1}, {key: "g", value: 0}, {key: "h", value: 1}, {key: "i", value: 0}, {key: "j", value: 1}] let result = [] arr.forEach(item => { if (item.value === 1) result.push(item); })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter
Reduce
Foreach

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 is being tested, compared options, their pros and cons, library usage, special JS features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a JSON object with three properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "JS Filter vs Reduce vs Foreach".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that there's no description provided for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Empty strings, suggesting that no specific code needs to be prepared or rendered before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Filter**: This test case uses the `filter()` method to create a new array containing only the elements with a value of 1.
2. **Reduce**: This test case uses the `reduce()` method to iterate over the array and push elements with a value of 1 into an accumulator array.
3. **Foreach**: This test case uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the array, pushing elements with a value of 1 into a result array.

**Options Compared**

The three options being compared are:

* `filter()`: A built-in JavaScript method that creates a new array containing only the elements for which the provided function returns true.
* `reduce()`: A built-in JavaScript method that applies a reducing function to each element in an array, reducing it to a single output value.
* `foreach()` (note: `forEach` is a standard JavaScript method and not a specific library): A method that executes a given callback function once for each element in an array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each option:

* **filter()**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, readable, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive if dealing with large datasets.
* **reduce()**:
	+ Pros: Can accumulate multiple values into a single result, useful for complex calculations.
	+ Cons: Less readable than `filter()` due to the accumulator function, and can lead to memory issues if not properly managed.
* **foreach()**:
	+ Pros: Simple to use, easy to read, and does not create a new array (though it modifies the original array).
	+ Cons: Can be slower than other options for large datasets, as it requires an explicit loop.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, `forEach()` is a standard JavaScript method, which implies that the benchmark is comparing the native JavaScript implementation against itself.

**Special JS Features (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features used in these tests, such as async/await, promises, or modules (ES6+ syntax).

**Other Considerations**

When running benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider:

* **Cache and memory effects**: Some browsers might cache results or have specific memory management strategies that affect performance.
* **Execution time vs. Execution count**: Measuring execution time can be misleading if the browser caches results between executions, leading to artificially lower times.
* **Browser differences**: Different browsers may execute JavaScript differently due to various implementation details.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing performance include:

* **Benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or Benchmark**: These libraries provide more advanced features and handling of edge cases, such as cache management and repeated execution minimization.
* **Native browser-specific APIs**, such as Chrome's `Benchmark` API: These can be used to create custom benchmarking tools tailored to specific use cases.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of three simple JavaScript methods (`filter()`, `reduce()`, and `foreach()`). The results indicate that `filter()` is generally the fastest option due to its efficient creation of a new array. However, `reduce()` can be faster in certain scenarios where the accumulator needs to accumulate multiple values. Ultimately, the choice between these options depends on the specific requirements of your use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/105.0.1343.53

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter	1115050.0 Ops/sec
Reduce	939387.9 Ops/sec
Foreach	914821.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS Filter vs Reduce vs Foreach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter vs Reduce vs Foreach

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter

Reduce

Foreach

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):