Benchmark: Test: reduce vs for

Script Preparation code:

var arr = []
for (var i = 0; i < 123456; i++) arr.push(i);

Tests:

for
var sum = 0 for (let i = 0, l = arr.length; i < l; i++) sum += i;
reduce
arr.reduce((sum, x) => sum + i, 0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmarking process to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `for` loop versus using the `reduce()` method in JavaScript. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster for adding up numbers in an array.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **For Loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`i`) that iterates over the length of the array, and adds each number to a running total.
2. **Reduce Method**: This approach utilizes the built-in `reduce()` method, which applies a provided function to each element in the array, accumulating a result.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **For Loop**:
	* Pros: More control over iteration, can be used with other data structures (e.g., objects).
	* Cons: Can be slower due to repeated index checks and array length calculations.
2. **Reduce Method**:
	* Pros: Concise, efficient, and often preferred for its functional programming style.
	* Cons: May require a deeper understanding of the `reduce()` method's behavior and limitations.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The code is standalone JavaScript, relying on built-in methods like `push()`, `length`, and `reduce()`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no explicit mention of any special features or syntax in the provided code snippets. However, it's worth noting that the use of `let` instead of `var` for variable declaration is a modern JavaScript feature (ES6+), which might be relevant to some readers familiar with newer JavaScript versions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few alternatives:

* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: A more concise way to iterate over an array using a callback function.
* **Array.prototype.map() and Array.prototype.reduce() together**: You could use `map()` to transform the data and then apply `reduce()` to sum up the results. However, this approach would likely incur additional overhead due to the intermediate transformation step.

To write your own benchmark for these alternatives, you'd need to create a new JSON definition with updated script preparation code reflecting the chosen method(s) and adjust the test cases accordingly.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.157 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	7196.3 Ops/sec
reduce	350.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test: reduce vs for (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs reduce

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):