Benchmark: Rxjs several pipes vs one 100k without functional array functions at all 123sdfaasd

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://unpkg.com/rxjs@6.5.5/bundles/rxjs.umd.min.js'></script>

AخA
 
<script src='https://unpkg.com/rxjs@6.5.5/bundles/rxjs.umd.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var rawdata = Array.from(Array(100000).keys()) // 10k numbers 1,2,3,4,5...

 
var rawdata = Array.from(Array(100000).keys()) // 10k numbers 1,2,3,4,5...

Tests:

RxJS one pipe

let { from, Observable } = rxjs;
let { flatMap, map, tap, toArray } = rxjs.operators;

const data$ = from(rawdata)
	.pipe(
		map(values => {
            let count = 0;
			for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
              count = count + 1;
            }
            return count;
        })
    )

let data;
data$.subscribe(d => data = d);

​x
 
let { from, Observable } = rxjs;let { flatMap, map, tap, toArray } = rxjs.operators;​const data$ = from(rawdata)    .pipe(        map(values => {            let count = 0;            for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) {              count = count + 1;            }            return count;        })    )​let data;data$.subscribe(d => data = d);

Several pipes

let { from, Observable } = rxjs;
let { flatMap, map, tap, toArray } = rxjs.operators;

const data$ = from(rawdata)
	.pipe(
		map(values => {
            let count = 0;
			for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
              count = count + 1;
            }
            return count;
        }),
      		map(values => {
            let count = 0;
			for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
              count = count + 1;
            }
            return count;
        }),
      		map(values => {
            let count = 0;
			for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
              count = count + 1;
            }
            return count;
        }),
      map(values => {
            let count = 0;
			for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
              count = count + 1;
            }
            return count;
        }),

      map(values => {
            let count = 0;
			for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
              count = count + 1;
            }
            return count;
        })
    )

let data;
data$.subscribe(d => data = d);

 
let { from, Observable } = rxjs;let { flatMap, map, tap, toArray } = rxjs.operators;​const data$ = from(rawdata)    .pipe(        map(values => {            let count = 0;            for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {              count = count + 1;            }            return count;        }),            map(values => {            let count = 0;            for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {              count = count + 1;            }            return count;        }),            map(values => {            let count = 0;            for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {              count = count + 1;            }            return count;        }),      map(values => {            let count = 0;            for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {              count = count + 1;            }            return count;        }),​      map(values => {            let count = 0;            for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {              count = count + 1;            }            return count;        })    )​let data;data$.subscribe(d => data = d);

Many pipes same function

let { from, Observable } = rxjs;
let { flatMap, map, tap, toArray } = rxjs.operators;

function myOperator(values) {
  let count = 0;
  for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    count = count + 1;
  }
  return count;
}

const data$ = from(rawdata)
	.pipe(
      map(myOperator),
      map(myOperator),
      map(myOperator),
      map(myOperator),
      map(myOperator)
    )

let data;
data$.subscribe(d => data = d);

 
let { from, Observable } = rxjs;let { flatMap, map, tap, toArray } = rxjs.operators;​function myOperator(values) {  let count = 0;  for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {    count = count + 1;  }  return count;}​const data$ = from(rawdata)    .pipe(      map(myOperator),      map(myOperator),      map(myOperator),      map(myOperator),      map(myOperator)    )​let data;data$.subscribe(d => data = d);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
RxJS one pipe
Several pipes
Many pipes same function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RxJS one pipe	22.3 Ops/sec
Several pipes	11.0 Ops/sec
Many pipes same function	10.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark tests three different approaches to perform a simple operation: counting the number of iterations in a loop. The operations are:

Using one pipe ( RxJS operators map and tap) without functional array functions.
Using multiple pipes with the same function (myOperator) for each iteration.
Not using any functional array functions at all.

Approach 1: One Pipe

This approach uses a single pipe to perform the operation. The map operator is used to transform the data, and the tap operator is used to log some information (not actually used in this case). The loop iterates 50 times to increment a counter.

Pros:

Simple implementation
Easy to understand

Cons:

May not be optimized for performance due to the use of multiple iterations in the loop

Approach 2: Multiple Pipes

This approach uses multiple pipes with the same function (myOperator) for each iteration. The map operator is used to apply the function to each element, and the result is passed through subsequent operators.

Pros:

Can be optimized for performance by reducing the number of iterations in the loop

Cons:

More complex implementation due to the use of multiple pipes
May lead to unnecessary computations if not optimized properly

Approach 3: No Functional Array Functions

This approach does not use any functional array functions, relying on traditional JavaScript loops and variable assignments.

Pros:

Often results in faster performance due to the absence of unnecessary function calls and allocations
Simple implementation

Cons:

May be less intuitive for developers familiar with functional programming concepts

Libraries and Features

The benchmark uses RxJS (Reactive Extensions for JavaScript), a popular library for reactive programming. The map operator is used in all three approaches, which applies a transformation function to each element of an observable sequence.

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition, so we won't go into that topic.

Other Alternatives

For this type of microbenchmark, other alternatives could include:

Using Array.prototype.forEach instead of loops
Utilizing Web Workers for parallel processing
Leveraging modern JavaScript features like for...of loops and Promise.all()
Implementing the benchmark using a different library or framework (e.g., Node.js or Ember.js)

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements of your project, performance considerations, and team expertise.

I hope this explanation helps!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests three different approaches to perform a simple operation: counting the number of iterations in a loop. The operations are:

1. Using one pipe ( RxJS operators `map` and `tap`) without functional array functions.
2. Using multiple pipes with the same function (`myOperator`) for each iteration.
3. Not using any functional array functions at all.

**Approach 1: One Pipe**

This approach uses a single pipe to perform the operation. The `map` operator is used to transform the data, and the `tap` operator is used to log some information (not actually used in this case). The loop iterates 50 times to increment a counter.

Pros:

* Simple implementation
* Easy to understand

Cons:

* May not be optimized for performance due to the use of multiple iterations in the loop

**Approach 2: Multiple Pipes**

This approach uses multiple pipes with the same function (`myOperator`) for each iteration. The `map` operator is used to apply the function to each element, and the result is passed through subsequent operators.

Pros:

* Can be optimized for performance by reducing the number of iterations in the loop

Cons:

* More complex implementation due to the use of multiple pipes
* May lead to unnecessary computations if not optimized properly

**Approach 3: No Functional Array Functions**

This approach does not use any functional array functions, relying on traditional JavaScript loops and variable assignments.

Pros:

* Often results in faster performance due to the absence of unnecessary function calls and allocations
* Simple implementation

Cons:

* May be less intuitive for developers familiar with functional programming concepts

**Libraries and Features**

The benchmark uses RxJS (Reactive Extensions for JavaScript), a popular library for reactive programming. The `map` operator is used in all three approaches, which applies a transformation function to each element of an observable sequence.

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition, so we won't go into that topic.

**Other Alternatives**

For this type of microbenchmark, other alternatives could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach` instead of loops
* Utilizing Web Workers for parallel processing
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops and `Promise.all()`
* Implementing the benchmark using a different library or framework (e.g., Node.js or Ember.js)

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements of your project, performance considerations, and team expertise.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Rxjs several pipes vs one 100k without functional array functions at all 123sdfaasd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RxJS one pipe vs Several pipes vs Many pipes same function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RxJS one pipe

Several pipes

Many pipes same function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):