Benchmark: filter-map vs reduce 100k

Script Preparation code:

a=[];
for(i=0;i<100000;i++) a.push(Number(i)/100000);
var filtering=x=>(x*114514)%1>0.5;
var mapping=x=>x+0.1919;
var reducing=(acc,x)=>{
  var value=mapping(x);
  if(filtering(value)) acc.push(value);
  return acc;
}

Tests:

map-filter
a.filter(filtering).map(mapping);
reduce
a.reduce(reducing,[]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map-filter
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

reduce

251/s

map-filter

249/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ reduce	251 Ops/sec
map-filter	249 Ops/sec

filter-map vs reduce 100k (version: 0)

modified version of `map-filter vs reduce` that switches the order of operations

Comparing performance of: `map-filter vs reduce`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

map-filter

reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

filter-map vs reduce 100k (version: 0)

modified version of `map-filter vs reduce` that switches the order of operations

Comparing performance of: map-filter vs reduce

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

map-filter

reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `map-filter vs reduce`