Benchmark: interleave - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function makeid() {
  return Math.random().toString(32).slice(-7);
}

function makeArray(length) {
  return Array.from({length}, makeid)
}

window.testFixtures = {
  strings: makeArray(50),
  chunks: makeArray(49).map(id => () => id)
}

Tests:

reduce
const {strings, chunks} = window.testFixtures chunks.reduce(function interleave(text, chunk, i) { return text + chunk() + strings[i + 1] }, strings[0])
while
const {strings, chunks} = window.testFixtures let text = strings[0] const length = chunks.length let i = -1 while(++i < length) { text += (0, chunks[i])() text += strings[i + 1] }
for-loop
const {strings, chunks} = window.testFixtures let text = strings[0] for (let i = 0, length = chunks.length; i < length; i += 1) { text += (0, chunks[i])() text += strings[i + 1] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
while
for-loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for any software engineer, and MeasureThat.net provides a great platform for creating and running microbenchmarks.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition JSON and individual test cases to understand what is being tested:

**Benchmark Definition**

The "interleave" benchmark is defined as follows:
```json
{
  "Name": "interleave",
  "Description": null,
  "Script Preparation Code": "...",
  "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```
This script preparation code creates a test fixture with two arrays: `strings` and `chunks`. The `strings` array contains 50 random strings, while the `chunks` array contains 49 functions that return a unique string.

The benchmark definition also mentions three different approaches to interleave the contents of the `chunks` array with the `strings` array:

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases, each representing one of the interleaving approaches:

1. **"reduce"`**
```javascript
const {strings, chunks} = window.testFixtures

chunks.reduce(function interleave(text, chunk, i) {
  return text + chunk() + strings[i + 1]
}, strings[0])
```
This test case uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to iterate over the `chunks` array and concatenate the returned string with the corresponding string from the `strings` array.

2. **"while"`**
```javascript
const {strings, chunks} = window.testFixtures

let text = strings[0]

const length = chunks.length
let i = -1
while (++i < length) {
  text += (0, chunks[i])()
  text += strings[i + 1]
}
```
This test case uses a `while` loop to iterate over the `chunks` array and concatenate the returned string with the corresponding string from the `strings` array.

3. **"for-loop"`**
```javascript
const {strings, chunks} = window.testFixtures

let text = strings[0]

for (let i = 0, length = chunks.length; i < length; i += 1) {
  text += (0, chunks[i])()
  text += strings[i + 1]
}
```
This test case uses a `for` loop to iterate over the `chunks` array and concatenate the returned string with the corresponding string from the `strings` array.

**Library: `window.testFixtures`**

The `window.testFixtures` object is an external library that provides a way to create and manage test fixtures. In this case, it's used to create two arrays: `strings` and `chunks`.

**Special JS Features/Syntax: `Array.prototype.reduce()`**

This test case uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function that allows you to iterate over an array and perform an accumulation operation.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **"reduce"`**: This approach is concise and easy to read. However, it requires the use of the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, which might be less familiar to some developers.
* **"while"`**: This approach is more explicit and easier to understand, as it uses a traditional loop structure. However, it's also longer and more verbose than the "reduce" approach.
* **"for-loop"`**: This approach is similar to the "while" approach but uses a `for` loop instead. It's concise and easy to read.

Other alternatives to consider:

* Using a different interpolation method, such as string concatenation or template literals.
* Optimizing the interleaving process by using caching or memoization techniques.
* Adding more test cases to cover different edge cases and performance scenarios.

In summary, this benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to interleave strings: `reduce`, `while`, and `for-loop`. Each approach has its pros and cons, and understanding these differences can help developers choose the most suitable method for their specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.14.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	861436.1 Ops/sec
while	888557.9 Ops/sec
for-loop	885539.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

interleave (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs while vs for-loop

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

while

for-loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):