Benchmark: Filter vs reduceawdawdawawdawdwa

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 12345; i++) {
  arr[i] = i;
}

function someFn(i) {
  return i % 2 === 0;
}

var sumReduce = 0,
  sumFilter = 0;

Tests:

Filter - test- 123421e12e21e12
sumFilter = arr.filter(elem => someFn(elem)).length
Reduce - test -134512e12e21e21e12
sumReduce = arr.reduce((prevValue, item) => someFn(item) ? ++prevValue : prevValue, 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter - test- 123421e12e21e12
Reduce - test -134512e12e21e21e12

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

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/101.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter - test- 123421e12e21e12	1789.6 Ops/sec
Reduce - test -134512e12e21e21e12	1901.4 Ops/sec

Filter vs reduceawdawdawawdawdwa (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filter - test- 123421e12e21e12 vs Reduce - test -134512e12e21e21e12

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Filter - test- 123421e12e21e12

Reduce - test -134512e12e21e21e12

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A