Benchmark: filter+map vs reduce

Tests:

runFilterAndMapTest
const COLLECTION_LENGTH = 1000; const TEST_ITERATIONS = 100; const getSingleCollection = (collectionLength) => Array.from({ length: collectionLength }, (_, k) => ({ id: k + 1, name: `name of ${k + 1}` })); const runFilterAndMapTest = (collection) => { return collection.filter(sampleObj => sampleObj.id > 50).map(sampleObj => sampleObj.name); }; for (let i = 0; i <= TEST_ITERATIONS; i++) { const collection = getSingleCollection(COLLECTION_LENGTH); runFilterAndMapTest(collection); }
runReduceTest
const COLLECTION_LENGTH = 1000; const TEST_ITERATIONS = 100; const getSingleCollection = (collectionLength) => Array.from({ length: collectionLength }, (_, k) => ({ id: k + 1, name: `name of ${k + 1}` })); const runReduceTest = (collection) => { return collection.reduce((acc, sampleObj) => { if (sampleObj.id > 50) { acc.push(sampleObj.name); } return acc; }, []); }; for (let i = 0; i <= TEST_ITERATIONS; i++) { const collection = getSingleCollection(COLLECTION_LENGTH); runReduceTest(collection); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
runFilterAndMapTest
runReduceTest

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 and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `runFilterAndMapTest` and `runReduceTest`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of JavaScript code that filters and processes a collection of objects.

**Test Case 1: runFilterAndMapTest**

This test case creates a collection of objects with `id` and `name` properties using an array generator. The test then runs two different approaches:

* Filter-Map Approach:
	+ Filters the collection to include only objects with `id` greater than 50.
	+ Maps the filtered collection to extract only the `name` property.
* Reduced Approach (using `reduce()` method):
	+ Iterates through the collection and pushes the `name` property of each object with `id` greater than 50 into an accumulator array.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Filter-Map Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable code
		+ Easy to understand
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of filtering and mapping
2. **Reduced Approach (using `reduce()` method)**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it avoids unnecessary filter and map operations
		+ Can handle large datasets more easily
	* Cons:
		+ More complex code, requiring a better understanding of the `reduce()` method

**Other Considerations**

1. **ES6 Features**: Both tests use modern JavaScript features, such as arrow functions, template literals, and array generators.
2. **No special JS features or syntax**: Neither test uses any specialized JavaScript features like Promises, Async/await, or Web Workers.

**Alternatives**

For measuring performance differences between these two approaches, other alternatives could include:

1. Using a different programming language, such as C++ or Python, to compare the performance of equivalent algorithms.
2. Using a benchmarking library or framework that provides more advanced features, such as event-driven execution and multiple thread support.
3. Using a cloud-based benchmarking service that can scale to larger test datasets.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be necessary for this specific benchmark, but they could provide additional insights into performance differences under different circumstances.

**Conclusion**

The `runFilterAndMapTest` and `runReduceTest` tests demonstrate the trade-off between readability and performance. The Filter-Map Approach is more readable, while the Reduced Approach (using `reduce()` method) is more efficient. Understanding these differences can help developers optimize their code for better performance.

Related benchmarks:

filter+map vs reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: runFilterAndMapTest vs runReduceTest

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

runFilterAndMapTest

runReduceTest

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):