Benchmark: join vs reduce 2

Script Preparation code:

var strings = [];
for (var i=0; i<1000; i++) {
  strings[i] = ""+i+i;
}

Tests:

reduce
let ret = strings.reduce((acc, currentValue) => { acc += `${currentValue};`; return acc; }, "");
join
let ret = strings.join(";")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
join

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's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two JavaScript methods: `join()` and `reduce()`. The script preparation code creates an array of strings (`strings`) with 1000 elements, where each element is a string representation of an integer (e.g., `"1+1"`, `"2+2"`, etc.).

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of:

1. `join()` method
2. `reduce()` method

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

*   **`join()` method:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Simple and intuitive to use.
        *   Can be more readable and easier to understand for developers familiar with string concatenation.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating multiple intermediate strings.
*   **`reduce()` method:**
    *   Pros:
        *   More efficient than `join()` as it avoids the creation of intermediate strings.
        *   Allows for a more functional programming style, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can be less readable and more challenging to understand for developers unfamiliar with this method.

**Library**

In neither test case is there any explicit use of a library. However, some JavaScript engines (like SpiderMonkey used by Firefox) provide built-in optimizations for string concatenation methods like `join()`.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax in these benchmarks. The code follows standard JavaScript syntax and doesn't utilize any modern features like async/await, arrow functions, or classes.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other string concatenation methods, here are some examples:

*   **`+` operator**: This method would simply concatenate the strings using the `+` operator. Performance-wise, it's usually slower than both `join()` and `reduce()`.
*   **`Array.prototype.forEach()` with callback function**: You could use `forEach()` to iterate over the array of strings and concatenate them manually. This approach is generally slower than `join()` and `reduce()`.

Here's some example code for these alternatives:

```javascript
// Using + operator
let ret = "";
strings.forEach(function (currentValue) {
  ret += currentValue;
});

// Using Array.prototype.forEach() with callback function
ret = "";
strings.forEach(function (currentValue) {
  ret += currentValue;
});
```

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these methods can vary depending on the specific use case, JavaScript engine, and other factors.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	92464.2 Ops/sec
join	198012.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

join vs reduce 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs join

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

join

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):