Benchmark: Format for logger

Tests:

filter+map+join
['2023-07-04T11:35:19.449Z', 'INFO', '1232esad'].filter(x => x !== undefined).map(x => `[${x}]`).join();
reduce
['2023-07-04T11:35:19.449Z', 'INFO', '1232esad'].reduce((acc, val) => acc + (val === undefined)? '': `[${val}]`, '')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter+map+join
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter+map+join	1763986.1 Ops/sec
reduce	3426505.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is an array of strings that represents a simple logging statement using a fictional logger format. The specific format used in this case is `"[{value}]"` where `{value}` is replaced with a string value. The benchmark tests two operations:

1. Filtering and mapping the values: `['2023-07-04T11:35:19.449Z', 'INFO', '1232esad'].filter(x => x !== undefined).map(x => `[${x}]`)`. This operation filters out `undefined` values, maps each value to a string in the format `"[{value}]"`, and then joins them together.
2. Reducing an array: `['2023-07-04T11:35:19.449Z', 'INFO', '1232esad'].reduce((acc, val) => acc + (val === undefined)? '': `[${val}]`, '')`. This operation concatenates the string values, skipping any `undefined` values and adding an empty string if necessary.

**Options Compared**
In this benchmark, two main options are compared:

1. **Filtering and Mapping**: This approach processes each value individually, applying filtering and mapping operations separately.
2. **Reducing**: This approach accumulates the results by concatenating strings in a single pass, skipping `undefined` values and handling edge cases explicitly.

**Pros and Cons**

* Filtering and Mapping:
	+ Pros: Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with array manipulation.
	+ Cons: May lead to slower performance due to extra iterations.
* Reducing:
	+ Pros: Can result in faster performance by reducing the number of iterations.
	+ Cons: Requires understanding of the `reduce` method and handling edge cases explicitly.

**Library Used**
There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, some features might be specific to certain JavaScript implementations (e.g., Safari's JavaScript engine).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**
None are mentioned specifically in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**
While MeasureThat.net focuses on `filter`, `map`, and `reduce` methods, other alternatives for similar operations include:

* Using `forEach` with a callback function to iterate over an array.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming utilities.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches can be significant, depending on the specific use case and implementation details.

Related benchmarks:

Format for logger (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter+map+join vs reduce

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter+map+join

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):