Benchmark: duplication resolution 2

Script Preparation code:

var records = new Array(20).fill(null).map(function (_, i) {
  return {toto: i, titi: 'hello'};
});

var keys = ['toto'];

Tests:

M
Object.values(records.reduce(function (acc, record) { const key = keys.map(function (key) { return `${key}: ${record[key]}`; }).join(';'); if (!acc[key]) { acc[key] = record; } return acc; }, {}));
C
records.reduce(function (acc, cur) { const isDup = acc.some(function (item) { var isDup = true; for (const key of keys) { if (item[key] !== cur[key]) { isDup = false; } } return isDup; }); if (!isDup) { acc.push(cur); } return acc; }, []);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
M
C

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to duplicate detection:

1. **Method M**: It uses `Object.values()` and `reduce()` to create an accumulator object where each key is a concatenation of the unique keys from the `records` array.
2. **Method C**: It uses `reduce()` with a custom function that checks for duplicates by iterating over the `keys` array and comparing values.

**Options Compared**

The two methods are being compared in terms of their performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Method M**:
	+ Pros: Uses built-in `Object.values()` and `reduce()`, which can be more efficient and concise.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected if the keys are not unique or if there are nested objects.
* **Method C**:
	+ Pros: Can handle duplicate detection for arrays with non-unique keys, but may be less efficient due to the custom function.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to the additional logic.

**Library**

In both cases, a library is not explicitly mentioned. However, `Object.values()` and `reduce()` are built-in JavaScript functions, which means this benchmark is testing native JavaScript performance.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in these test cases. They rely solely on standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other Considerations**

When running these benchmarks, it's essential to consider the following:

* The size of the input data (20 records) might be too small for meaningful conclusions.
* More realistic scenarios with larger datasets and more complex logic could provide better insights into performance differences.
* Browser-specific optimizations or caching might affect the results.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking to replicate this benchmark, here are some alternatives:

1. **Use a JavaScript testing framework**: Tools like Jest, Mocha, or Cypress can provide more structured testing and easier execution of benchmarks.
2. **Optimize the test data**: Increase the size of the input dataset to better represent real-world scenarios.
3. **Test on different browsers or environments**: To account for potential browser-specific differences in performance.
4. **Profile the code**: Use tools like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector to analyze and optimize the performance-critical parts of your JavaScript code.

By following these alternatives, you can create a more comprehensive benchmarking setup that provides valuable insights into the performance of your duplicate detection logic.

Related benchmarks:

duplication resolution 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: M vs C

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

M

C

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):