Benchmark: reduce vs map/filter 3 items

Script Preparation code:

var myParams = [
  ['filter[status]','val1'],
  ['filter[status]','val2'],
  ['filter[status]','val3']
];

Tests:

reduce
myParams.reduce((a, c) => { if (c[0] === 'filter[status]') { a.push(c[1]); } return a; }, []);
map/filter
myParams .filter((param) => param[0] === 'filter[status]') .map((param) => param[1]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
map/filter

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 definitions and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definitions**

The two benchmark definitions use the `myParams` array, which is prepared using JavaScript code:
```javascript
var myParams = [
  ['filter[status]', 'val1'],
  ['filter[status]', 'val2'],
  ['filter[status]', 'val3']
];
```
This array represents a set of parameters that will be filtered and then mapped over.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. `reduce`:
```javascript
myParams.reduce((a, c) => {
  if (c[0] === 'filter[status]') {
    a.push(c[1]);
  }
  return a;
}, []);
```
2. `map/filter`:
```javascript
myParams.filter((param) => param[0] === 'filter[status]').map((param) => param[1]);
```
**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Reduce**: This approach uses the accumulator pattern to build an array by iterating over the `myParams` array. It's concise, but it can be slower than other approaches due to its functional programming nature.
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, efficient use of JavaScript's built-in functions.
	+ Cons: Limited control over iteration and filtering logic.
* **Map/Filter**: This approach uses two separate functions: `filter` to remove unwanted elements from the array, and `map` to transform the remaining elements. It provides more flexibility than the `reduce` approach but can be slower due to the overhead of function calls.
	+ Pros: Flexible, easy to understand, efficient use of JavaScript's built-in functions.
	+ Cons: Additional function calls can introduce performance overhead.

**Library and syntax considerations**

There is no explicit library mentioned in either benchmark definition. However, both approaches rely on JavaScript's built-in `reduce` and `map` functions, as well as the `filter` method for array objects.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these examples.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to this benchmark include:

* Using a `for...of` loop instead of `reduce`:
```javascript
var result = [];
for (const param of myParams) {
  if (param[0] === 'filter[status]') {
    result.push(param[1]);
  }
}
```
This approach is similar to the `reduce` method but uses a more traditional loop structure.

* Using a `forEach` loop with a callback function:
```javascript
myParams.forEach((param) => {
  if (param[0] === 'filter[status]') {
    // do something with param[1]
  }
});
```
This approach is similar to the `map/filter` combination but uses a more traditional loop structure.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have varying levels of performance and readability compared to the original `reduce` and `map/filter` examples.

Related benchmarks:

reduce vs map/filter 3 items (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs map/filter

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

map/filter

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):