Benchmark: test123cro - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

// Create an array of 1000 random intergers between 1 and 10000
var arrRandom = [];
for(var intCtr=0; intCtr<1000; intCtr++) {
  arrRandom.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(10000)));
}

function reduceCallback(accum, curr) {
    accum.push(curr);
	return accum;
}

function doRedeuce(pArray) {
	return pArray.reduce((arr, item) => {
    	arr.push(item);
        return arr;
    }, []);
}
function doLoop(pArray) {
	var accum = [];
	for(var intCtr=0; intCtr<pArray.length; intCtr++) {
		accum.push(pArray[intCtr]);
	}
	return accum;
}
function doForEach(pArray) {
	var accum = [];
	pArray.forEach(function(item) {
		accum.push(item)
	});
}

Tests:

reduce
var redeuceResult=[]; redeuceResult = doRedeuce(arrRandom);
foreach
var forEachResult=[]; forEachResult = doForEach(arrRandom)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
foreach

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/84.0.4147.135 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	251704.8 Ops/sec
foreach	253826.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition represents two JavaScript functions: `doRedeuce` and `doForEach`. Both functions take an array as input and push its elements to a new array. The only difference between the two functions is the way they iterate over the input array:

1. `doRedeuce`: Uses the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, which applies a callback function to each element in the array.
2. `doForEach`: Uses the `forEach` loop, which iterates over the elements of the array using a provided callback function.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different approaches:

1. **Reduce**: Uses the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method.
2. **ForEach**: Uses a traditional `forEach` loop.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **Reduce**:
    *   Pros:
        +   More concise and expressive code
        +   Built-in performance optimization
        +   Fewer memory allocations (since the accumulator is passed by reference)
    *   Cons:
        +   May have higher overhead due to native method calls
        +   Less control over iteration order
*   **ForEach**:
    *   Pros:
        +   More traditional and familiar syntax for many developers
        +   Provides more control over iteration order (e.g., skipping elements)
        +   No additional dependencies or methods required
    *   Cons:
        +   More verbose code compared to reduce
        +   May require explicit memory allocations (or use of push)

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any libraries, but it does rely on built-in JavaScript features like `Array.prototype.reduce()` and the `forEach` loop.

However, if we were to extend this benchmark to include additional libraries or syntax features, here are some possibilities:

*   **Lodash**: The `reduce` method is often implemented in Lodash as a separate function (`_reduce`). Using Lodash would add an additional layer of abstraction.
*   **Async/await**: If the functions were designed to be asynchronous, we might see async variants like `doRedeuceAsync()` and `doForEachAsync()`.
*   **Arrow Functions**: Some developers prefer arrow functions for their conciseness. We could compare the performance of using traditional functions versus arrow functions.

**Other Considerations**

When building this benchmark, consider the following:

1.  **Array size and distribution**: The benchmark uses an array of 1000 random integers between 1 and 10,000. Adjusting the array size or distribution could impact performance.
2.  **Browser and platform support**: The benchmark runs on a specific browser (Chrome 84) and device platform (Desktop). Testing on other browsers or platforms may reveal different results.
3.  **Memory allocation optimization**: Some JavaScript engines optimize memory allocations by reusing arrays or using optimized data structures. This could affect the performance of both reduce and forEach approaches.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to this benchmark include:

1.  **Benchmarking with `benchmarked` library**: The benchmarked library provides a more structured approach to building benchmarks, including automatic error handling and better support for multiple browsers.
2.  **Comparing functions with ` js-benchmark`**: The js-benchmark library offers a simple way to compare the performance of different JavaScript functions using a variety of metrics (e.g., execution time, memory usage).
3.  **Testing with a framework like Jest or Mocha**: These testing frameworks can help you write robust and efficient tests for your codebase.

Related benchmarks:

test123cro (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: reduce vs foreach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

foreach

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):