Benchmark: Combine "set with destructuring" vs "map with push"

Tests:

set with destructuring
const teachers = [{id: 'A'}, {id: 'B'}, {id: 'C'}, {id: 'F'}, {id: 'H'}, {id: 'I'}]; const admins = [{id: 'A'}, {id: 'C'}, {id: 'D'}, {id: 'E'}, {id: 'F'}, {id: 'G'}]; const ids = new Set(teachers.map(item => item.id)); const merged = [...teachers, ...admins.filter(item => !ids.has(item.id))];
map with push
const users = [{id: 'A'}, {id: 'B'}, {id: 'C'}, {id: 'F'}, {id: 'H'}, {id: 'I'}]; const addendUsers = [{id: 'A'}, {id: 'C'}, {id: 'D'}, {id: 'E'}, {id: 'F'}, {id: 'G'}]; const combinedUsersMap = {}; const combinedUsers = []; users.forEach(user => { if (!combinedUsersMap[user.id]) { combinedUsersMap[user.id] = true; combinedUsers.push(user); } }); addendUsers.forEach(addendUser => { if (!combinedUsersMap[addendUser.id]) { combinedUsersMap[addendUser.id] = true; combinedUsers.push(addendUser); } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
set with destructuring
map with push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its test cases for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to combine arrays of objects: using `Set` with destructuring and using `map()` with `push()`. The goal is to determine which approach is more efficient in terms of execution time.

**Test Cases**

There are only two test cases:

1. **"set with destructuring"`**
	* Benchmark Definition:
```javascript
const teachers = [{id: 'A'}, {id: 'B'}, {id: 'C'}, {id: 'F'}, {id: 'H'}, {id: 'I'}];
const admins = [{id: 'A'}, {id: 'C'}, {id: 'D'}, {id: 'E'}, {id: 'F'}, {id: 'G'}];

const combinedUsersMap = {};
const combinedUsers = [];

users.forEach(user => {
  if (!combinedUsersMap[user.id]) {
    combinedUsersMap[user.id] = true;
    combinedUsers.push(user);
  }
});

addendUsers.forEach(addendUser => {
  if (!combinedUsersMap[addendUser.id]) {
    combinedUsersMap[addendUser.id] = true;
    combinedUsers.push(addendUser);
  }
});
```
	* This test case also creates two arrays `users` and `addendUsers`, but uses a different approach: it iterates over both arrays, checks if the ID is present in the `combinedUsersMap`, and pushes the user or addend user to the `combinedUsers` array.

**Library and Features**

Neither of these test cases uses any specific library. They rely solely on built-in JavaScript features:

* `Set`
* `map()`
* `push()`
* `forEach()`

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these test cases.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**"set with destructuring"`**

Pros:

* Efficient use of `Set` to extract unique IDs
* Destructuring allows for concise code

Cons:

* May not be suitable for large datasets due to the overhead of creating a `Set`
* May not perform well on older browsers or environments that don't support `Set`

**"map with push"`**

Pros:

* Suitable for large datasets, as it only iterates over the arrays once
* Can be more efficient than `set` for smaller datasets

Cons:

* More verbose code compared to destructuring
* May not be suitable for older browsers or environments that don't support `forEach()` and `map()`

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Dataset size: For large datasets, the "map with push" approach may be more efficient.
* Code readability: Destructuring can lead to more concise code, but may require additional explanation for less experienced developers.
* Browser support: Both approaches rely on built-in JavaScript features, which are widely supported. However, older browsers or environments that don't support `Set`, `forEach()`, and `map()` may not execute the test cases correctly.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these two approaches include:

* Using a library like Lodash's `uniq` function to extract unique IDs
* Using a different data structure, such as an array with repeated values (e.g., `[...new Set([... teachers.map(item => item.id)])]`)
* Using a more efficient algorithm, such as using a trie or a bloom filter

However, these alternatives may not be necessary unless the dataset size is extremely large or performance-critical. The built-in JavaScript features used in these test cases are generally sufficient for most use cases.

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set with destructuring	3209508.2 Ops/sec
map with push	4388718.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Combine "set with destructuring" vs "map with push" (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set with destructuring vs map with push

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

set with destructuring

map with push

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):