Benchmark: test .find and .reduce

Tests:

find
const arrayLang = ['SRP','ENG', 'EST', 'RUS', 'POR', 'BRA', 'GER', 'QWE', 'ASD', 'TYU', 'ZXC', 'POI', 'HGT', 'QAS'] return arrayLang.reduce((acc, ObjectValue) => { if (ObjectValue?.language === 'ENG') { acc = ObjectValue; } return acc; }, undefined);
reduce
const arrayLang = ['SRP','ENG', 'EST', 'RUS', 'POR', 'BRA', 'GER', 'QWE', 'ASD', 'TYU', 'ZXC', 'POI', 'HGT', 'QAS'] return arrayLang.find((property) => property?.language === 'ENG');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
find
reduce

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two common array methods in JavaScript: `.find()` and `.reduce()`. The test cases aim to measure the performance of these methods on an array of language codes with a specific condition (English language).

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **.find()**: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition. In this case, it's used to find the English language code.
2. **.reduce()**: This method applies a callback function to each element of the array and reduces it to a single value. In this case, it's used to find the English language code by iterating through the array and returning the first match.

**Pros and Cons**

* `.find()`:
	+ Pros: More concise and readable syntax, returns the first matching element.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient as `.reduce()` if the condition is complex or requires multiple iterations.
* `.reduce()`:
	+ Pros: Can handle more complex conditions, can be used for aggregating values, and returns a single value.
	+ Cons: More verbose syntax, may have higher overhead due to the callback function.

**Library usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. Both methods are built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for `.find()` and `.reduce()`. If you're interested in exploring other advanced JavaScript concepts, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few examples:

* Using `filter()` instead of `.find()`: This would return an array of elements that match the condition, rather than just the first one.
* Using `some()` instead of `.reduce()`: This would also return a boolean indicating whether at least one element in the array matches the condition.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and may not be as efficient as the original methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
find	6065890.0 Ops/sec
reduce	77526800.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test .find and .reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: find vs reduce

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

find

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):