Benchmark: stringCount REDUCE VS FOREACH

stringCount REDUCE VS FOREACH (version: 0)

Write a function named `stringCount` that takes in an array of strings and returns an object where the keys are the strings from the array and the value of each key is a count of how many times the string appears in the object. If there are duplicate strings the values should reflect that.

Comparing performance of: FOREACH vs REDUCE

Created: 29 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Tests:

FOREACH
const stringCount = (strArray) => { let res = {}; strArray.forEach((str) => (res[str]) ? res[str]++ : res[str]=1); console.log(res); } stringCount(["apple", "orange", "peach", "pear", "apple"]);
REDUCE
const stringCount = (strArray) => { console.log(strArray.reduce((res, str) => { (res[str]) ? res[str]++ : res[str]=1 return res; }, {})); } stringCount(["apple", "orange", "peach", "pear", "apple"]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
FOREACH
REDUCE

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

In the provided benchmark, the goal is to evaluate two different JavaScript approaches for counting the occurrences of strings in an array: using the `forEach` method and using the `reduce` method. Both methods execute the task of accumulating string counts into an object but do so in different syntactical and functional ways.

### Comparison of Options:

1. **FOREACH**:
   - **Implementation**: The `forEach` method is used to iterate over each string in the input array (`strArray`). In each iteration, it checks if the string already exists as a key in the result object (`res`). If it does, it increments its count; if not, it initializes the count to 1.
   - **Pros**:
     - Readability: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand, making it accessible to developers familiar with basic JavaScript.
     - Simplicity: It explicitly handles each string in isolation, which can be easier to modify or extend later for additional processing if required.
   - **Cons**:
     - Performance: In terms of performance, `forEach` may be slightly slower than other methods when handling large datasets since it does not utilize any optimization techniques available for accumulative approaches.

2. **REDUCE**:
   - **Implementation**: The `reduce` method transforms the input array into a single output value, in this case, the accumulated object of string counts. It iteratively processes each string and carries along the accumulated result object (`res`), returning this accumulated object at the end.
   - **Pros**:
     - Functional Programming Style: `reduce` supports a more functional programming paradigm, which can be appealing to developers comfortable with those concepts.
     - Conciseness: This method often leads to more compact code, which might illustrate the intention of data transformation more clearly in certain contexts.
   - **Cons**:
     - Complexity: For those less familiar with functional programming techniques, `reduce` can be less intuitive and harder to read, especially for beginners.
     - Overhead: There’s potentially more cognitive overhead since `reduce` encapsulates the linear state changes into a single process.

### Considerations:

- **Performance**: The benchmark results indicate that the `FOREACH` method (540,427.875 executions per second) slightly outperforms the `REDUCE` method (530,368.1875 executions per second) in this specific test case. However, performance could vary with different data sizes and structures; methods like `reduce` can also be more optimized in certain scenarios, particularly in functional programming-heavy environments.
- **Use Case**: Depending on the specific requirements of the application (e.g., complexity, maintainability, and performance demands), either method might be preferable.
- **Testing Environment**: The benchmark was executed on Chrome 130 on a Mac OS X device, which means results could vary based on the browser or operating system.

### Libraries and Features:
In both approaches, no external libraries are utilized; each method relies solely on built-in JavaScript functionality. `forEach` and `reduce` are both native array methods. No special JavaScript features or syntax (like async/await or promises) are used in the implementations, which keeps the benchmarks simple and focused on classic JavaScript array manipulation techniques.

### Alternatives:
Other methods of achieving similar results could include:
- **for Loop**: This traditional loop constructs allows manual access to array elements and can provide fine-tuned performance optimizations since it avoids the overhead of function calls present in `forEach` and `reduce`.
  
  ```javascript
  const stringCount = (strArray) => {
      let res = {};
      for (let i = 0; i < strArray.length; i++) {
          const str = strArray[i];
          res[str] = (res[str] || 0) + 1;
      }
      console.log(res);
  }
  ```

- **Map Object**: If dealing with a situation requiring more complex keys or a more efficient lookup, especially with larger datasets, a `Map` could be used in place of a regular object, allowing for a more performant solution in terms of key lookups.

In conclusion, both the `forEach` and `reduce` methods serve their purpose well, each with its strengths and weaknesses. The choice between them should consider not just raw performance, but also code clarity, maintainability, and the specific needs of the application architecture.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 28 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
FOREACH	31500.0 Ops/sec
REDUCE	31244.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks: