Benchmark: IndexOfAll - Reduce vs For 2

HTML Preparation code:

<html>
  <head>
  	<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/3.10.1/lodash.min.js"></script>
  </head>
  <body>
  </body>
</html>

Script Preparation code:

var xpath = "sdf[ewr[da[[[s]]]df[[[d]]]saf]a[[[s]]]d[[[fa]]]s[[[[[[[[[df]gh[asdf]]]]]]]]]asdf]adsdasd[asd[[[a]]]sd]as[[[[[[dasd]]]]]]sa[asd[[[[[asdasdasd]]]]]asd]"

Tests:

Reduce
var result = _.reduce(xpath, function(accumulator, element, index) { if (element === '[') { accumulator.push({start: index}); } if (element === ']') { _.set(_.findLast(accumulator, (obj) => !obj.end), "end", index); } return accumulator; }, []);
For
var predicateMarkStack = []; var predicateMarkIndexRange = []; for (var i = 0; i < xpath.length; i++) { if (xpath.charAt(i) === "[") { predicateMarkStack.push(i); } if (xpath.charAt(i) === "]") { var index = predicateMarkStack.pop(); predicateMarkIndexRange.push({init: index, end: i}); } }
Reduce (ignoring nested)
var array = [] var result = _.reduce(xpath, function(accumulator, element, index) { if (element === '[') { array.push(index); } if (element === ']') { var startIndex = array.pop() if (array.length === 0) { accumulator.push({ start: startIndex, end: index}) } } return accumulator; }, []);
For (ignoring nested)
var predicateMarkStack = []; var predicateMarkIndexRange = []; for (var i = 0; i < xpath.length; i++) { if (xpath.charAt(i) === "[") { predicateMarkStack.push(i); } if (xpath.charAt(i) === "]") { var index = predicateMarkStack.pop(); if (predicateMarkStack.length === 0) { predicateMarkIndexRange.push({init: index, end: i}); } } }
Reduce with pop
var array = [] var result = _.reduce(xpath, function(accumulator, element, index) { if (element === '[') { array.push(index); } if (element === ']') { var startIndex = array.pop() accumulator.push({ start: startIndex, end: index}) } return accumulator; }, []);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Reduce
For
Reduce (ignoring nested)
For (ignoring nested)
Reduce with pop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Reduce	23628.9 Ops/sec
For	23980.5 Ops/sec
Reduce (ignoring nested)	66365.1 Ops/sec
For (ignoring nested)	24354.7 Ops/sec
Reduce with pop	65272.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for finding all occurrences of square brackets (`[]`) in a given string, specifically designed to compare different approaches: `reduce` and `for` loops. The benchmark is run multiple times with various browsers and devices.

**Test Case 1: Reduce (Ignoring Nested)**

This test case uses the `_` library's `reduce()` function, which applies a function against an accumulator and each element in the array (in this case, the input string) to reduce it to a single output value. The callback function checks for opening square brackets (`[`) and pushes the current index into an array. When a closing square bracket (`]`) is encountered, it sets the "end" property of the last pushed object and updates the accumulator with the new start and end indices.

Pros:

* Efficient use of memory by storing only necessary information.
* Easy to implement and understand for those familiar with `reduce()`.

Cons:

* May be slower due to function call overhead and potential stack overflow issues if the input string is very large.

**Test Case 2: For (Ignoring Nested)**

This test case uses a simple loop to iterate over the input string, pushing indices onto an array when an opening square bracket (`[`) is encountered. When a closing square bracket (`]`) is encountered, it pops the last pushed index and updates the accumulator with the new start and end indices.

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand for those familiar with traditional loops.
* May be faster due to fewer function calls.

Cons:

* More memory usage due to storing all pushed indices in an array.
* Potential performance issues if the input string is very large.

**Test Case 3: Reduce (Without Ignoring Nested)**

This test case uses the same `reduce()` approach as Test Case 1 but without ignoring nested brackets. The callback function checks for opening and closing square brackets (`[]`) separately, pushing both indices into an array when an opening bracket is encountered.

Pros:

* More accurate results by considering all occurrences of square brackets.
* May be faster due to fewer function calls.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to more complex logic and potential stack overflow issues if the input string is very large.

**Test Case 4: For (With Ignoring Nested)**

This test case uses a similar approach to Test Case 2 but with ignoring nested brackets. When an opening square bracket (`[`) is encountered, it pushes only the current index into the array; when a closing square bracket (`]`) is encountered, it skips over any subsequent indices.

Pros:

* More efficient memory usage by storing only necessary information.
* May be faster due to fewer function calls.

Cons:

* Less accurate results by skipping some occurrences of square brackets.
* More complex logic for those unfamiliar with traditional loops.

**Browser and Device Variations**

The benchmark is run multiple times with different browsers (Chrome 68) and devices (Desktop, Linux). The results show variations in execution speed due to browser and device-specific factors such as architecture, memory management, and optimization techniques.

In summary, the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your use case. If accuracy is crucial, `reduce()` might be a better option. However, if performance is key and ignoring nested brackets is acceptable, the `for` loop approach could be more efficient.

Related benchmarks:

IndexOfAll - Reduce vs For 2 (version: 2)

Test

Comparing performance of: Reduce vs For vs Reduce (ignoring nested) vs For (ignoring nested) vs Reduce with pop

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Reduce

For

Reduce (ignoring nested)

For (ignoring nested)

Reduce with pop

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):