Benchmark: test-reduce - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

let
let dic={} const list=[1,2,3,4,5] list.forEach((item)=>{ dic[item]=item })
reduce
const list=[1,2,3,4,5] list.reduce((prev,next)=>{return {...{[next]:next},...prev}},{})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
let
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
let	5163253.0 Ops/sec
reduce	303720.6 Ops/sec

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, test cases, and latest benchmark result to explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format as:

```json
{
    "Name": "test-reduce",
    "Description": null,
    "Script Preparation Code": null,
    "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```

This definition indicates that the benchmark is named `test-reduce` and has no description, script preparation code, or HTML preparation code. The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two different approaches: using the `forEach` loop (represented by test case 1) versus using the `reduce` method (represented by test case 2).

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

### Test Case 1: "let"

```json
{
    "Benchmark Definition": "let dic={}\r\nconst list=[1,2,3,4,5]\r\nlist.forEach((item)=>{\r\n\tdic[item]=item\r\n})\r\n",
    "Test Name": "let"
}
```

This test case uses a `forEach` loop to iterate over the array `list` and populate an object `dic` with values from the array.

### Test Case 2: "reduce"

```json
{
    "Benchmark Definition": "const list=[1,2,3,4,5]\r\nlist.reduce((prev,next)=>{return {...{[next]:next},...prev}},{})",
    "Test Name": "reduce"
}
```

This test case uses the `reduce` method to achieve the same result as Test Case 1: creating an object `dic` from the array `list`.

**Library Used**

Neither of the test cases explicitly uses a library. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript arrays and objects are part of the ECMAScript standard and do not rely on external libraries for their functionality.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax used in either of these test cases. They utilize built-in JavaScript methods (`forEach` and `reduce`) to achieve their respective goals.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of the two approaches:

1. Using a `forEach` loop.
2. Using the `reduce` method.

By comparing these two approaches, MeasureThat.net can provide insights into which method is more efficient for this specific use case.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative methods to achieve the same result as Test Case 1 (using `forEach`) could include:

* Using a traditional loop with an index variable (`for` loop)
* Using a combination of `map` and `reduce`
* Utilizing other array methods, such as `every` or `some`, if applicable

However, these alternatives are not explicitly tested in this benchmark.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros and cons of using the `forEach` loop versus the `reduce` method depend on various factors, including:

* Readability: `forEach` loops can be more readable for simple iterations, while `reduce` methods might require more complex logic.
* Performance: The performance difference between these two approaches is typically minimal unless dealing with very large datasets. However, `reduce` methods are generally considered more memory-efficient since they avoid creating intermediate objects.

In this benchmark, the exact pros and cons of each approach cannot be determined without running additional tests or analyzing the resulting code.

Related benchmarks:

test-reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: let vs reduce

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

let

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):