Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
areas reduce vs map
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
reduce vs map
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var areas = [ "cloud", "line-cloud", "edge-1", "line-edge-1", "chiller-1", ]
Tests:
reduce
[...new Array(areas[0].length).keys()] .map((index) => areas.map((item) => item[index]).join(" ")) .reduce((acc, row) => acc + `"${row}"`, "");
map
[...new Array(areas[0].length).keys()] .map((index) => areas.map((item) => item[index]).join(" ")) .map(row => `"${row}"`).join('')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce
map
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. **Benchmark Purpose** The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: `reduce` and `map`. The test case uses an array of strings, "areas", which is used to create a string of words separated by spaces. The goal is to measure how efficient each approach is in concatenating and formatting this string. **Options Compared** There are two options compared: 1. **`reduce`**: This method applies a function to each element of the array, reducing it to a single value. In this case, it concatenates the words separated by spaces. 2. **`map`**: This method creates a new array with the results of applying a given function to each element in the original array. In this case, it maps over the "areas" array, formatting each word as a string. **Pros and Cons** * `reduce`: + Pros: More concise and expressive code. + Cons: Can be slower than `map` due to the overhead of function calls and concatenations. * `map`: + Pros: Faster and more efficient for large datasets, since it avoids the overhead of function calls and concatenations. + Cons: Requires an additional step (formatting) that can increase code complexity. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, the use of `new Array(areas[0].length).keys()` suggests using the `Array.prototype.keys()` method, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The benchmark uses ES6 features: * Arrow functions (`() => ...`) * Template literals (`"..."`) These features are used to make the code more concise and readable. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options: 1. `forEach`: Instead of using `map`, you could use `forEach` to iterate over the array and format each word as a string. 2. Loops: You could use traditional loops (e.g., `for` or `while`) to iterate over the array and concatenate the strings manually. 3. Libraries: Depending on your specific needs, you might consider using libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide functions for manipulating arrays and strings. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and code complexity compared to the original `reduce` and `map` approaches.
Related benchmarks:
flatMap vs reduce
flatMap vs reduces
flatMap vs reduce test
flat map vs reduce concat
Flatmap vs reduce with objects
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?