Benchmark: Reduce vs Object.assign vs Object.fromEntries vs Object.assign v2

Script Preparation code:

function createArray(propsCount) {
    const arr = []
    for (let i = 0; i < propsCount; i += 1) {
        arr.push({
            active: i % 5 === 0
        })
    }
    return arr
}

var users = createArray(1000)

Tests:

Reduce
users.reduce((acc, curr) => { if (curr.active) { return acc } return { ...acc, [curr.id]: curr.name } })
Map Filter Reduce Assign
users.filter((user) => !user.active).map((user) => ({ [user.id]: user.name })).reduce(Object.assign, {})
From Entries
Object.fromEntries(users.filter((user) => !user.active).map((user) => [user.id, user.name]))
Trivial reduce
users.filter((user) => !user.active).reduce((acc, {id, name}) => Object.assign(acc, { [id]: name }), {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Reduce
Map Filter Reduce Assign
From Entries
Trivial 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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different approaches to merge an object with dynamic keys:

1. `Object.assign()`
2. `Object.fromEntries()`
3. `reduce()` (with a callback function)
4. `trivial reduce` (using a modified version of `reduce()`)

**Options Compared**

Each approach is being tested on the same input data, which consists of an array of objects with dynamic keys (`id` and `name`). The test aims to measure the performance difference between these four approaches.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Object.assign()**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: May lead to shallow copying, which can result in unexpected behavior if the input object has complex inheritance structures.
2. **Object.fromEntries()**:
	* Pros: Modern and efficient, creates a new object with the desired structure.
	* Cons: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, not supported by older browsers. Requires the `entries()` method to be available.
3. **Reduce()` (with a callback function):
	* Pros: Flexible and can handle complex merge scenarios.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of iterating over the input array.
4. **Trivial reduce**:
	* Pros: Optimized version of `reduce()`, avoids unnecessary iterations.
	* Cons: Requires a custom implementation, which may not be familiar to all developers.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the test cases uses specific libraries or advanced JavaScript features like Web Workers or async/await. The focus is on the core object manipulation functions.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating this benchmark, consider the following:

* **Browser support**: As `Object.fromEntries()` was introduced in ECMAScript 2015, older browsers might not support it.
* **Input data size**: The test case uses a large array of objects (1000 elements). You may want to run the benchmark with smaller input sizes to isolate the performance differences between approaches.
* **Contextual factors**: This benchmark focuses on the core object manipulation functions. Consider running additional tests to evaluate other aspects, such as caching or optimization strategies.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or want to explore more advanced techniques:

1. Use a library like Lodash, which provides optimized and flexible merge functions.
2. Implement a custom merge function using `reduce()` with a clever implementation.
3. Consider using `Array.prototype.reduce()` with a binary search approach to optimize performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, requirements, and target browser support.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Reduce	9167.8 Ops/sec
Map Filter Reduce Assign	8.3 Ops/sec
From Entries	10029.0 Ops/sec
Trivial reduce	5673.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Reduce vs Object.assign vs Object.fromEntries vs Object.assign v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Reduce vs Map Filter Reduce Assign vs From Entries vs Trivial reduce

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Reduce

Map Filter Reduce Assign

From Entries

Trivial 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):