Benchmark: set add vs map 2

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var count = 100000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
  arr.push(i);
}

Tests:

set add
const folderSet = new Set() arr.forEach((f) => { folderSet.add(f) }) var end = [...folderSet]
map
const result = arr.map((f) => f) var end = [...new Set(result)]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
set add
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. Using a `Set` data structure to add elements and then converting it to an array.
2. Using the `map()` function to create a new array with the same elements as the original array, and then using a `Set` to remove duplicates.

**Script Preparation Code:**

The script creates an empty array `arr` and sets a variable `count` to 100,000. The loop iterates from 0 to `count-1`, pushing each number into the `arr` array.

**Html Preparation Code:**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases:**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **"set add"`:
```javascript
const folderSet = new Set();
arr.forEach((f) => {
  folderSet.add(f);
});
var end = [...folderSet];
```
This test case creates a new `Set` called `folderSet` and adds all elements from the `arr` array to it using the `forEach()` method. The resulting set is then converted back to an array and assigned to the variable `end`.

2. **"map"`:
```javascript
const result = arr.map((f) => f);
var end = [...new Set(result)];
```
This test case uses the `map()` function to create a new array called `result` with the same elements as the original `arr` array, but with each element duplicated (i.e., the identity function is applied). The resulting array is then passed to the `Set` constructor, which removes duplicates, and the resulting set is converted back to an array.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **"set add"`:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time, as adding elements to a `Set` is an O(1) operation.
		+ More memory-efficient, as sets only store unique values.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code and manual iteration.
2. **"map"`:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and maintain, as it uses a built-in function.
		+ Can be faster for very large datasets, since `map()` can use parallel processing.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower execution time, due to the overhead of creating a new array and removing duplicates.
		+ Less memory-efficient, since each element is duplicated in the resulting array.

**Library:**

The only library used in this benchmark is the built-in `Set` data structure in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

None.

**Other Considerations:**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-off between performance and readability. If you need to perform a simple set operation with a small dataset, "set add" might be a better choice. However, if you're working with very large datasets or need to optimize for readability, "map" might be more suitable.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to achieve the same goal include:

1. Using `Array.from()` instead of `Set()`: This method creates an array from an iterable object, which can be faster than creating a set and then converting it back to an array.
```javascript
const result = arr.map((f) => f);
var end = Array.from(new Set(result));
```
2. Using `filter()` or `reduce()` instead of `Set()`: These methods allow you to filter or aggregate elements in the original array, which can be faster than creating a set and then removing duplicates.
```javascript
const result = arr.map((f) => f);
var end = result.filter((f) => true); // no-op, just returns the entire array
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and memory usage.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.97 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.15.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set add	101.8 Ops/sec
map	109.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set add vs map 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set add vs map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

set add

map

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):