Benchmark: Custom Benchmark 777

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
	data.push([`field_${i}`, 'somve_value'])
}

Tests:

reducde with ...
data.reduce((accum, [key, value]) => ({ ...accum, [key]: { value } }), {})
reduce with mutation
data.reduce((accum, [key, value]) => { accum[key] = value; return accum; }, {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reducde with ...
reduce with mutation

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. `data.reduce((accum, [key, value]) => ({ ...accum, [key]: { value } }), {})`
2. `data.reduce((accum, [key, value]) => {\r\n\taccum[key] = value;\r\n\treturn accum;\r\n}, {})`

Both test cases use the Array.prototype.reduce() method to process an array of objects.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, two variants of the reduce() method are being tested:

1. **Accumulator Object Mutation**: In the first variant, a new object is created on each iteration, and its properties are updated with the accumulator's values.
2. **Plain Object Mutation**: In the second variant, the same object is reused as the accumulator, and its properties are directly updated.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Accumulator Object Mutation**:
	* Pros: potentially more efficient, since no new objects need to be created.
	* Cons: can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled correctly (e.g., due to object reference issues).
2. **Plain Object Mutation**:
	* Pros: straightforward and easy to understand.
	* Cons: might be slower due to the overhead of updating an existing object.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that `Array.prototype.reduce()` is a native JavaScript method, not a library.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2020 (ES12) support.

**Other alternatives**

There are other ways to implement these reduce() variants:

1. **Use a different accumulator type**: Instead of an object, you could use an array, string, or another data structure.
2. **Optimize the update logic**: You might be able to optimize the update logic by using techniques like caching or avoiding unnecessary property lookups.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have different performance characteristics and might not be as straightforward to implement as the original code.

**Benchmark preparation**

The script preparation code sets up an array `data` with 10,000 objects, each containing two properties: `field_X` and `value`. The HTML preparation code is empty.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reducde with ...	0.1 Ops/sec
reduce with mutation	2326.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Custom Benchmark 777 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reducde with ... vs reduce with mutation

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reducde with ...

reduce with mutation

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):