Benchmark: Concat reduce - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

test
const rawImages = [1,2,3,4] const test = Object .entries(rawImages) .reduce((acc, [key, image]) => [].concat[key]);
test2
const rawImages = [1,2,3,4] const test = rawImages .filter(n => n) .map(n => n)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.97 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test	1382427.5 Ops/sec
test2	29182324.0 Ops/sec

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 its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is simply an empty JSON object, indicating that no specific code or setup is required for this test case.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **test**
```javascript
const rawImages = [1,2,3,4]
const test = Object.entries(rawImages).reduce((acc, [key, image]) => [].concat[key])
```
This test case uses the `Object.entries()` method to get an array of key-value pairs from the `rawImages` array. The `reduce()` method is then used to iterate over this array and create a new array with the concatenated values. However, it seems like there's a mistake in the benchmark definition - `.concat[key]` should be `.concat(image)`.

2. **test2**
```javascript
const rawImages = [1,2,3,4]
const test = rawImages.filter(n => n).map(n => n)
```
This test case uses the `filter()` method to remove elements from the `rawImages` array that satisfy the condition `n => n`, effectively keeping only numbers. The `map()` method is then used to create a new array with the same numbers, repeated.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we can compare two approaches:

* **Option 1: Using `Object.entries()` and `.reduce()`**
	+ Pros:
		- Allows for more control over the iteration process.
		- Can be useful when working with complex data structures.
	+ Cons:
		- May have higher overhead due to the creation of an intermediate array (keys from `Object.entries()`)
		- Requires a good understanding of the `reduce()` method and its callback function
* **Option 2: Using `.filter()` and `.map()`**
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster than using `reduce()` because it avoids creating intermediate arrays.
		- More concise and readable code.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for complex data structures or large datasets.

**Library and Special JS Features**

Neither of these test cases uses any specific libraries, but they do rely on the following features:

* **`Object.entries()`**: This method is introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and returns an array of a given object's own enumerable property [key, value] pairs.
* **`.reduce()`**: While `.reduce()` has been around since ECMAScript 2009 (ES5), it was renamed to `Array.prototype.reduce()` from JavaScript 1.0 onwards.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these options, consider the following:

* If you need to process complex data structures or work with large datasets, using `.reduce()` might be a better choice.
* For simple filtering and mapping operations, `.filter()` and `.map()` are often faster and more readable.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for similar operations could include:

* Using `for...of` loops instead of array methods
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda for utility functions
* Exploring other data structure transformations (e.g., using a `forEach` loop or a recursive function)

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these options may be negligible unless you're working with extremely large datasets. The choice ultimately depends on your personal coding style, project requirements, and familiarity with the relevant methods.

Related benchmarks:

Concat reduce (version: 0)

ddd

Comparing performance of: test vs test2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test

test2

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):