Benchmark: fromEntries vs for vs reduce

Script Preparation code:

var xs = [
    ["foo1", "bar"],
    ["foo2", "bar"],
    ["foo3", "bar"],
    ["foo4", "bar"],
    ["foo5", "bar"],
    ["foo6", "bar"],
    ["foo7", "bar"],
    ["foo8", "bar"],
    ["foo9", "bar"],
    ["foo10", "bar"],
    ["foo11", "bar"],
    ["foo12", "bar"],
];

Tests:

Object.fromPairs
Object.fromEntries(xs)
Array.reduce(...)
xs.reduce((agg, [k, v]) => ({ ...agg, [k]: v }), {});
for loop
let r = {}; for (let i = 0; i < xs.length; i++) { r[xs[i][0]] = xs[i][1]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.fromPairs
Array.reduce(...)
for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:121.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/121.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 121 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.fromPairs	2534788.0 Ops/sec
Array.reduce(...)	870770.4 Ops/sec
for loop	11366692.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares three approaches to create an object from an array:

1. `Object.fromEntries(xs)`: This method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10). It takes an iterable of key-value pairs as input and returns a new object with the key-value pairs.
2. For loop: A traditional for loop that iterates over the array and assigns values to an empty object using the syntax `r[xs[i][0]] = xs[i][1];`.
3. `Array.reduce((agg, [k, v]) => ({ ...agg, [k]: v }), {})`: This method uses the reduce() function to iterate over the array and accumulate a new object with key-value pairs.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares these three approaches in terms of performance. The test cases are:

* `Object.fromEntries(xs)`
* For loop
* `Array.reduce((agg, [k, v]) => ({ ...agg, [k]: v }), {})`

**Pros and Cons**

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

1. **`Object.fromEntries(xs)`**:
	* Pros: Concise syntax, easy to read, and maintain.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support ES10.
2. For loop:
	* Pros: Widely supported across all browsers and environments.
	* Cons: Longer syntax, may lead to more errors due to the need for manual index management.
3. `Array.reduce((agg, [k, v]) => ({ ...agg, [k]: v }), {})`:
	* Pros: Can be used with other reduce() functions, making it a versatile option.
	* Cons: May require additional setup and understanding of the reduce() function.

**Library/Lodash**

In the benchmark definition, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, in some test cases, `Lodash` might be used implicitly through its features, like `reduce()`. If you're using Lodash, it provides a `map()` method that can also be used to create an object from an array.

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. All code snippets use standard ECMAScript syntax.

**Alternatives**

If the `Object.fromEntries(xs)` approach doesn't work for your environment, you could consider using other methods, like:

1. `Array.prototype.map()`: Creates a new array with transformed values.
2. `Array.prototype.forEach()`: Iterates over the array and executes a callback function for each element.
3. Manual iteration using `for` loop or `while` loop.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient as `Object.fromEntries(xs)` if performance is critical.

Related benchmarks:

fromEntries vs for vs reduce (version: 0)

Object creation from an array

Comparing performance of: Object.fromPairs vs Array.reduce(...) vs for loop

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.fromPairs

Array.reduce(...)

for loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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