var arr = [5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 4];
const counts = {};
for (const num of arr) {
counts[num] = counts[num] ? counts[num] + 1 : 1;
}
arr.reduce(function (acc, curr) {
return acc[curr] ? ++acc[curr] : acc[curr] = 1, acc
}, {});
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Using an object to hold the counts | |
Using reduce |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Using an object to hold the counts | 1863877.0 Ops/sec |
Using reduce | 3042336.2 Ops/sec |
What is tested on the provided JSON?
The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript code that counts the occurrences of each item in an array. The tests compare two approaches: using an object to hold the counts and using the reduce
method.
Options compared
{}
and then iterating through the array, incrementing the count for each number found in the array. If the number is not already a key in the object, it adds it with a value of 1.reduce
: This approach uses the reduce
method to iterate through the array and accumulate the counts. It takes an initial value {}
as the accumulator, which is then updated for each iteration.Pros and Cons
reduce
:reduce
.Library
There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, the use of reduce
suggests that the developer is familiar with this JavaScript method.
Special JS feature/syntax
The benchmark uses the syntax of JavaScript loops (e.g., for...of
, const counts[num] = ...
) and the reduce
method, which are standard features in modern JavaScript. There are no special or experimental syntax features used in this benchmark.
Other alternatives
Alternative approaches to counting occurrences in an array might include:
Map
object instead of an objectSet
Keep in mind that the performance difference between these alternatives may be significant, and the choice of approach will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.