Benchmark: split...reduce vs Object.assign(split...map)

Script Preparation code:

var classArray = [];
for (var i=0; i < 100000; i++) {
  classArray.push('class-name');
}
var classes = classArray.join(' ' );

Tests:

split...reduce
classes.split(' ').reduce((acc, item)=>{ return { ...acc, [item]: true, }; }, {});
split...map
Object.assign(classes.split(' ').map(item=> ({[item]: true})));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches to manipulate an array of strings:

1. Using `Array.prototype.split()` and then applying `Array.prototype.reduce()`.
2. Using `Object.assign()` with a function that maps each string to an object.

**Options Compared**

* Approach 1: `split` followed by `reduce`
* Approach 2: `map` followed by `Object.assign`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Approach 1 (`split` + `reduce`)**
	+ Pros:
		- More functional programming style
		- Can be more memory-efficient for large datasets
	+ Cons:
		- Requires using a callback function, which can make the code harder to read
		- The `reduce()` method modifies the accumulator object, which might not be what you want in some cases
* **Approach 2 (`map` + `Object.assign`)**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable
		- Less prone to modifying the original array or object
	+ Cons:
		- Might be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array with `Array.prototype.map()`
		- Requires using `Object.assign()` which can be a performance bottleneck in some cases

**Library/Function Used**

* `Object.assign()` is used in Approach 2. It's a built-in JavaScript function that copies properties from one or more source objects to a target object.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Array.prototype.reduce()` and `Array.prototype.map()` is a common pattern in JavaScript programming, especially when working with arrays.

**Other Alternatives**

For Approach 1 (`split` + `reduce`), you could also consider using other reduction functions like `Array.prototype.forEach()` or even a simple loop to achieve the same result. For Approach 2 (`map` + `Object.assign`), you might want to explore other array manipulation methods, such as `Array.prototype.reduce()` with an initial value, or using a library like Lodash that provides more efficient and concise utility functions.

In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches to manipulating arrays of strings. While Approach 1 is more functional programming style, it requires using a callback function, which can make the code harder to read. Approach 2 is more concise and readable but might be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array with `Array.prototype.map()`.

Related benchmarks:

split...reduce vs Object.assign(split...map) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split...reduce vs split...map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split...reduce

split...map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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