Benchmark: Array reduce with nested spread vs map and push

Tests:

Spread
const params = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]; const result = params.reduce((result, i) => ({ items: [...result.items, i], overallCount: result.overallCount + i, }), { items: [], overallCount: 0 })
Push
const params = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]; const result = { items: [], overallCount: 0 } params.map((i) => { result.items.push(i); result.overallCount += i; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Spread
Push

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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question compares two approaches to reduce an array of numbers: using the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method with nested spread (`...`) or using the `Array.prototype.map()` method with subsequent `push()` operation.

**Test Cases**

There are only two test cases:

1. **"Spread"`:
	* The benchmark definition uses the `reduce()` method with nested spread to accumulate an array of numbers and a running total.
	* The test code is provided inline, which is a good practice for microbenchmarks.
2. **"Push"`:
	* The benchmark definition uses the `map()` method followed by `push()` operation to achieve the same result as the "Spread" case.
	* Again, the test code is provided inline.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Nested Spread (`...`)**: This approach uses the spread operator to create a new array with the accumulated values, which is then used as the accumulator for the `reduce()` method.
2. **Push Operation**: This approach uses the `map()` method to create an array of transformed values, and then pushes each value onto an existing array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Nested Spread (`...`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise code.
		+ Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of `map()` and subsequent `push()`.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance issues if not done correctly (e.g., creating unnecessary intermediate arrays).
2. **Push Operation**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more efficient since it avoids the overhead of `reduce()` with nested spread.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires two function calls (`map()` and `push()`), which can introduce additional overhead.

**Library/Features**

Neither of these approaches uses any external libraries. However, both use JavaScript features like `Array.prototype.reduce()`, `Array.prototype.map()`, and the spread operator (`...`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in either benchmark definition.

**Alternatives**

For this specific benchmark, there isn't a significant alternative to compare. However, if we were to explore other approaches, some possibilities could be:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` with callback functions.
* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` without nested spread (i.e., using `acc` as a single value instead of an object).
* Using a custom loop or iteration mechanism.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance characteristics as the two approaches being compared.

Related benchmarks:

Array reduce with nested spread vs map and push (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Spread vs Push

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Spread

Push

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):