Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
split...reduce vs split...map (extended)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
split...reduce vs split...map
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var classArray = []; for (var i=0; i < 1000000; i++) { classArray.push('class-name'); } var classes = classArray.join(' ' );
Tests:
split...reduce
classes.split(' ').reduce((acc, item)=>{ return { ...acc, [item]: true, }; }, {});
split...map
classes.split(' ').map(item=> ({[item]: true}));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
split...reduce
split...map
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition provides two test cases: 1. `split...reduce`: This test case measures the performance of splitting the string into individual class names and then reducing it to create an object with each class name as a key. 2. `split...map`: This test case measures the performance of splitting the string into individual class names and then mapping it to create an array of objects with each class name as a key. **Options Compared** The benchmark is comparing two approaches: 1. Using `reduce()`: This method applies a function against an accumulator and each element in the array (from left to right) to reduce it to a single value. 2. Using `map()`: This method creates a new array with the results of applying a provided function on every element in this array. **Pros and Cons** * **Using `reduce()`**: + Pros: Can create an object with multiple key-value pairs, can be more memory-efficient for large datasets. + Cons: Can be slower than `map()` because it requires iterating over the entire array to accumulate values. * **Using `map()`**: + Pros: Faster and more suitable for creating arrays of objects, can handle larger datasets. + Cons: Creates a new array with multiple objects, which can consume more memory. **Library Usage** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that both `reduce()` and `map()` are built-in JavaScript methods. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The benchmark uses the arrow function syntax (`=>`) for defining small anonymous functions. This is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Other Considerations** When evaluating these benchmarks, consider the following: * Memory usage: Since both tests involve creating objects with class names as keys, memory consumption will be significant. * Cache locality: The `map()` approach might benefit from better cache locality due to the array iteration pattern. **Alternatives** Some alternative approaches could include: 1. Using a custom loop instead of built-in methods (e.g., using a `for` loop). 2. Employing other data structures, such as a Map or an object literal with multiple properties. 3. Optimizing the string splitting and class name iteration process to reduce overhead. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant depending on the specific requirements of your project or codebase.
Related benchmarks:
ES6 spread operator vs. Array.prototype.reduce()
Math.max vs Array.reduce
flatMap vs reduce test
flatMap vs reduce test 2
push vs spread (reduce array)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?