Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
31012022
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Object.fromEntries vs Reduce (mutate) vs Reduce (spread)
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var data = [...Array(10000)].map((_, i) => [i, i]);
Tests:
Object.fromEntries
Object.fromEntries(data);
Reduce (mutate)
data.reduce((acc, [k, v]) => { acc[k] = v; return acc; }, {});
Reduce (spread)
data.reduce((acc, [k, v]) => ({ ...acc, [k]: v }), {});
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Object.fromEntries
Reduce (mutate)
Reduce (spread)
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents three individual test cases that compare different approaches to creating an object from an array of key-value pairs using the `Object.fromEntries()` method, the `reduce()` method with mutation, and the `reduce()` method with spreading. In essence, the tests are measuring the performance differences between these three methods in creating an object from a large dataset. **Options being compared:** 1. **`Object.fromEntries(data)`**: This is the most modern and concise way to create an object from an array of key-value pairs. It's a relatively new method introduced in ECMAScript 2015. 2. **`data.reduce((acc, [k, v]) => {\r\n acc[k] = v;\r\n return acc;\r\n}, {})`**: This is the traditional way to achieve this result using the `reduce()` method with mutation. 3. **`data.reduce((acc, [k, v]) => ({ ...acc, [k]: v }), {})`**: This approach uses object spreading (`{ ...acc, [k]: v }`) to create a new object each time, rather than mutating the existing one. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **`Object.fromEntries(data)`**: * Pros: concise, modern, and efficient. * Cons: requires support for ECMAScript 2015 or later, may not be compatible with older browsers or environments. 2. **`data.reduce((acc, [k, v]) => {\r\n acc[k] = v;\r\n return acc;\r\n}, {})`**: * Pros: widely supported across browsers and environments, easy to understand for those familiar with the `reduce()` method. * Cons: less concise, may be slower due to mutation overhead. 3. **`data.reduce((acc, [k, v]) => ({ ...acc, [k]: v }), {})`**: * Pros: efficient use of object spreading, avoids mutation overhead. * Cons: slightly more complex syntax, may require modern browsers or environments for optimal performance. **Library usage:** None of the provided test cases rely on any external libraries. **Special JS features/syntax:** The `Object.fromEntries(data)` method uses a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015, called "object from entries". The other two approaches use the `reduce()` method, which is a more traditional JavaScript function. **Benchmark preparation code and test cases:** The provided script preparation code creates an array of 10,000 key-value pairs using the `[i, i]` syntax. Each test case uses this data to create an object using one of the three approaches mentioned earlier. The individual test cases are then executed, and the results are collected. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative methods to create an object from an array of key-value pairs, some other options include: 1. `Object.assign()` method with a mapping function. 2. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provides more comprehensive utility functions for working with arrays and objects. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the methods being tested in the provided benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
slice array
feachand
testestets 2
index vs map115
index vs map117
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?