Benchmark: Reduce vs map/join

Script Preparation code:

var strings = [];
for (var i=0; i<1000; i++) {
  strings[i] = ""+i+i;
}

Tests:

for
var result = ""; for (var i=0; i<strings.length; i++) { result = result+' x-'+strings[i]; }
reduce
var result = strings.reduce(function(string, i) { return string+'x-'+i+' '; }, "");
map
var result = strings.map(function(i) { return 'x-'+i; }).join(' ');
for of
var result = ""; for (var i of strings) { result += 'x-'+i+' '; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
reduce
map
for of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is tested, compared, and pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a test case that can be executed on MeasureThat.net. In this case, we have four test cases:

1. **For**: A traditional `for` loop with indexing (`i`) to concatenate strings.
2. **Reduce**: The `reduce()` method is used to concatenate strings from the `strings` array.
3. **Map/join**: The `map()` function is used to transform each string in the `strings` array, and then the `join()` method is used to concatenate the results.
4. **For of**: A newer `for...of` loop with indexing (`i`) to concatenate strings.

**Options Compared**

The test cases compare different approaches to concatenating strings:

* **For**: Traditional loop with indexing
* **Reduce**: Using the `reduce()` method for concatenation
* **Map/join**: Using the `map()` function followed by `join()`
* **For of**: Newer `for...of` loop with indexing

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **For**: Pros: Simple, easy to understand. Cons: Can be slow due to manual string concatenation using the `+` operator.
2. **Reduce**: Pros: Efficient, as it avoids creating temporary strings. Cons: May have performance overhead due to function call and object lookup.
3. **Map/join**: Pros: Concise, easy to read. Cons: Creates temporary arrays and objects, which can lead to performance issues.
4. **For of**: Pros: Modern, readable syntax. Cons: Performance may be slower due to the new loop construct.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that the `reduce()` method uses the Array.prototype.reduce() function from the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for concatenating strings could include using string templates (e.g., `StringBuilder`), regular expressions, or third-party libraries like Underscore.js. However, MeasureThat.net's focus is on benchmarking the performance of built-in JavaScript methods and constructs.

Keep in mind that these test cases are designed to compare the performance of different approaches to concatenating strings, not to optimize string manipulation in general.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/66.0.3359.170 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 66 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	3107.1 Ops/sec
reduce	23362.8 Ops/sec
map	11832.5 Ops/sec
for of	7195.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Reduce vs map/join (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs reduce vs map vs for of

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

reduce

map

for of

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):