<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/rxjs/6.6.2/rxjs.umd.min.js'></script>
var source = Array(1000000).fill(1).map((_, i) => Math.random());
const arrayResult = source
.map(n => n * 2)
.filter(n => n > 0.5)
.reduce((m, c) => Math.max(m, c));
const transducerResult = rxjs.from(source).pipe(
rxjs.operators.map(n => n * 2),
rxjs.operators.filter(n => n > 0.5),
rxjs.operators.reduce((m, c) => Math.max(m, c))
).subscribe(console.log);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Array | |
RxJs |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Array | 27.7 Ops/sec |
RxJs | 64.7 Ops/sec |
I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases for you.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using an array and using RxJS (Reactive Extensions for JavaScript). The benchmark measures the time it takes to perform a series of operations on an array of random numbers.
Options being compared
Two options are being compared:
Pros and Cons of each approach
Array approach:
Pros:
Cons:
RxJs approach:
Pros:
Cons:
Library used
In the test cases, the rxjs
library is used. RxJS provides a set of operators that can be chained together to process data in a reactive manner.
Special JavaScript feature or syntax
None mentioned explicitly in this benchmark definition.
Other considerations
When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:
Alternative approaches
Other alternatives to consider when comparing array and RxJs approaches include:
Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of performance or flexibility as RxJS, but they can be viable options depending on your specific requirements.