Benchmark: filter vs reduce speedo

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = -100000; i < 100000; i++) {
  arr[i] = i;
}

Tests:

filter
arr.filter(val=>val>=0);
reduce
sumReduce = arr.reduce((lastValue, item) => { if(item >= 0) { lastValue.push(item) } return lastValue },[]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
reduce

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 provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two JavaScript methods: `arr.filter()` and `arr.reduce()`. Both methods are used to process an array of numbers, but they serve different purposes. The objective is to compare their performance and efficiency.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **`filter()` method**: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function. In this case, only positive numbers (`val >= 0`) are kept.
2. **`reduce()` method**: This method applies a function to each element in an array and reduces it to a single value or an array. In this case, the callback function pushes non-negative numbers to an accumulator array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`filter()` method**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, efficient for filtering out unwanted elements.
	* Cons: Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive for large datasets.
	* Advantages in this benchmark: Fast filtering operation.
2. **`reduce()` method**:
	* Pros: Can handle complex data processing and aggregation.
	* Cons: Slower than `filter()` due to the overhead of accumulating values.
	* Disadvantages in this benchmark: Less efficient for simple filtering tasks.

**Library and Purpose**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, assuming a standard JavaScript environment, we can infer that:

1. **`arr.filter()`**: Uses the `Array.prototype.filter()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function.
2. **`arr.reduce()`**: Uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, which is also a built-in JavaScript function.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses two modern JavaScript features:

1. **Arrow functions**: Used in both `filter()` and `reduce()` callback functions (e.g., `val => val >= 0`).
2. **Template literals**: Used in the `Script Preparation Code` for initializing the `arr` array (e.g., `"var arr = [];\r\nfor (var i = -100000; i < 100000; i++) {\r\n  arr[i] = i;\r\n}\r\n\r\n"`).

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement these benchmarks from scratch, you could consider using:

1. **`lodash.filter()`**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a fast and efficient filtering function.
2. **`Array.prototype.map()`**: Another built-in JavaScript method that can be used for filtering, although it's not as straightforward as `filter()`.
3. **Native WebAssembly (WASM) functions**: If you're targeting a WASM-enabled browser or environment, you could use optimized, low-level filtering and reduction functions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional setup and dependencies, and might not offer significant performance improvements over the built-in JavaScript methods used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

filter vs reduce speedo (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs reduce

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

reduce

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):