Benchmark: 2 spread + 2 Maps + 1 Math.min() + 1 Math.max() vs 1 Array.reduce()

2 spread + 2 Maps + 1 Math.min() + 1 Math.max() vs 1 Array.reduce() (version: 0)

Compare speed of spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() for one array vs Array.reduce().

Comparing performance of: 2 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() vs 1 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() vs No spreading and executing .reduce one time

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var v = new Array(10000);
var values = []
for (let i = 0; i < v.length; ++i) {
    values.push({value: i % 20})
}

Tests:

2 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()
const min = Math.min(...values.map(i => i.value)); const max = Math.max(...values.map(i => i.value)); return {min, max}
1 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()
const mapped = values.map(i => i.value) const min = Math.min(...mapped); const max = Math.max(...mapped); return {min, max}
No spreading and executing .reduce one time
return values.reduce( (acc, {value} ) => { if (acc.min > value) acc.min = value if (acc.max < value) acc.max = value return acc }, { min: Infinity, max: 0 } )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
2 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()
1 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()
No spreading and executing .reduce one time

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the speed of three different approaches to find the minimum and maximum values in an array:

1. **Spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()**: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array containing the values, and then executes `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` on this array.
2. **Spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() (separate maps)**: This approach creates two separate arrays using the spread operator, one for mapping each value to its index, and then uses `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` on these arrays.
3. **No spreading and executing .reduce()**: This approach uses the Array.prototype.reduce() method to find the minimum and maximum values in the array without creating a new array or using the spread operator.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* Spreading and executing `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`
* Spreading and executing `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` (separate maps)
* No spreading and executing `.reduce()`

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward implementation.
	* Cons: Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive.
2. **Spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()` (separate maps)**:
	* Pros: Similar to the first approach but avoids creating a new array by using separate maps.
	* Cons: More complex implementation than the first approach.
3. **No spreading and executing .reduce()**:
	* Pros: Most memory-efficient approach, as it only uses existing array data.
	* Cons: Can be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with the reduce() method.

**Libraries Used**

None of the provided benchmark definitions explicitly use any JavaScript libraries. However, if we consider the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method used in the third test case, we can infer that it relies on the built-in Array prototype methods.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
2 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()	13538.6 Ops/sec
1 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()	21407.6 Ops/sec
No spreading and executing .reduce one time	16164.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

2 spread + 2 Maps + 1 Math.min() + 1 Math.max() vs 1 Array.reduce() (version: 0)

Compare speed of spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() for one array vs Array.reduce().

Comparing performance of: 2 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() vs 1 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max() vs No spreading and executing .reduce one time

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

2 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()

1 spreading and executing Math.min() and Math.max()

No spreading and executing .reduce one time

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):