Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
reduce me test 000009
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
reduce spread vs reduce 1
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = [{items: ['banana', 'jesus', 1212312, 2, 4, 'б', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'sausage', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg']}, {items: ['banana', 'jesus', 1212312, 2, 4, 'б', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'sausage', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg']}, {items: ['banana', 'jesus', 1212312, 2, 4, 'б', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'sausage', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg', '112312312', 'dsdsdsds', 'sdsdsdsd', 'ergergergerg']}]
Tests:
reduce spread
array.reduce((acc, {items}) => { return [...acc, ...items.map((item) => item)]; }, []);
reduce 1
array.reduce((acc, {items}) => { const preparedItems = items.map((item) => { return {item}; }) acc.push(...preparedItems); return acc; }, []);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce spread
reduce 1
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):
Measuring JavaScript performance can be a complex task, but I'll break it down in simple terms. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided benchmark definition represents two test cases: `reduce me test 000009` and its individual test cases `reduce spread` and `reduce 1`. The overall purpose of these tests is to measure the performance difference between two approaches to using the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method in JavaScript. **Options Compared** Two main options are compared: 1. **Direct Spreading**: The first approach, represented by `reduce 1`, uses direct spreading (`...items.map((item) => item)`). This means that instead of creating a new array with mapped items, the spread operator is used to add these items directly to the accumulator (`acc`). 2. **Prepared Items**: The second approach, represented by `reduce spread`, creates a separate array of prepared items using `map()`. Each item in this array has an object with a single property `item`. **Pros and Cons** **Direct Spreading (Reduce 1)** Pros: * More concise code * Potentially faster since it avoids the overhead of creating a new array * Less memory allocation, as no extra objects are created Cons: * Can lead to slower performance due to direct spreading, which might involve additional operations or checks * May not be compatible with older browsers that don't support spread operator **Prepared Items (Reduce Spread)** Pros: * More readable code, as each item is explicitly prepared in an object format * Might perform better since the prepared items array can be optimized further by the browser * Compatible with most modern browsers Cons: * Requires more code and potentially slower performance due to the creation of a new array and objects **Other Considerations** 1. **Browser Optimizations**: Modern browsers, like Chrome 91 in this case, have built-in optimizations for `Array.prototype.reduce()` that can significantly impact performance. 2. **Array Length and Content**: The length and content of the input array can affect performance, as larger arrays or those with more complex data structures might require more computations. 3. **Garbage Collection**: JavaScript's garbage collection process can impact performance, especially when working with large arrays or complex data structures. **Library Usage** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, some modern browsers may include built-in optimizations for `Array.prototype.reduce()` that could be considered as part of the library ecosystem. **Special JS Features/Syntax** The benchmark uses JavaScript's spread operator (`...`) and object destructuring (`{item}`) features, which are relatively modern syntax. If you're working with older versions of JavaScript or want to ensure compatibility across different browsers, it's essential to consider these features when writing benchmarks. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes v3
reduce spread vs reduce
set.has vs. array.includes vs array.indexOf (string values) (larger array)
test jsss
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?