Benchmark: Generator vs function

Tests:

Generator
function* fibonacci(n) { const infinite = !n && n !== 0 let current = 0 let next = 1 while (infinite || n--) { yield current; [current, next] = [next, current + next] } } const [...first100] = fibonacci(100);
Es6 reduce
const fibonacci = n => Array.from({ length: n }).reduce( (acc, val, i) => acc.concat(i > 1 ? acc[i - 1] + acc[i - 2] : i), [] ); const [...first100] = fibonacci(100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Generator
Es6 reduce

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 dive into the benchmark analysis.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using a generator function (`Generator`) and using `Array.prototype.reduce()` with a callback function (`Es6 reduce`).

**Options Compared:**

1. **Generator Function**: A generator function is a special type of function that can be paused and resumed during its execution. It's particularly useful for creating iterators, which can be used to generate sequences of values on the fly.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce() with Callback**: `reduce()` is a method that applies a callback function to each element in an array, accumulating a value. In this case, it's used to calculate the Fibonacci sequence.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Generator Function (Generator)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More memory-efficient, as only the current value is stored in memory.
		- Can be paused and resumed, making it useful for large datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower execution times due to the overhead of creating and managing generators.
* **Array.prototype.reduce() with Callback (Es6 reduce)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster execution times due to the optimized implementation in modern browsers.
		- Can be more convenient for simple calculations like Fibonacci sequences.
	+ Cons:
		- May consume more memory, as an intermediate array is created.

**Library/Language Features:**

None of the benchmark cases use any external libraries or JavaScript features beyond the standard language features. The `Generator` function uses a built-in feature in JavaScript, while `Array.prototype.reduce()` is a standard method for arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The `Generator` function uses a syntax that's specific to generator functions in JavaScript (the `*` symbol before the function name). This syntax allows the function to be paused and resumed during execution. There are no other special features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives:**

1. **Using an iterator object**: Instead of using a generator function, you could create an iterator object using the `Symbol.iterator` property and implementing the `next()` method.
2. **Using a loop with indices**: You could use a traditional loop with indices to calculate the Fibonacci sequence, eliminating the need for either `Generator` or `reduce()`.
3. **Other reduction methods**: Depending on your specific needs, you might consider using other reduction methods, such as `Array.prototype.reduceRight()` or `Array.prototype.forEach()`, although these may not be suitable for this particular use case.

**Benchmark Result Interpretation:**
The benchmark results show the execution times for each test case (Generator and Es6 reduce) on a Chrome 108 browser with a Windows desktop platform. The higher the executions per second, the better the performance. In this case, the `Es6 reduce` approach is significantly faster than the `Generator` function, likely due to the optimized implementation of `reduce()` in modern browsers.

Related benchmarks:

Generator vs function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Generator vs Es6 reduce

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Generator

Es6 reduce

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):