Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
To dict: 2 iterations vs new array and unique on each iteration inside [2]
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
2 iterations vs On each
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
window.array = Array.from({ length: 100000 }, (_, i) => i)
Tests:
2 iterations
const dict = array.reduce((acc, item) => { if (!acc[item]) { acc[item] = []; } acc[item].push(item); return acc; }, {}) Object.keys(dict).forEach(key => { dict[key] = [...new Set(dict[key])] }) console.log(dict);
On each
const dict = array.reduce((acc, item) => { if (!acc[item]) { acc[item] = []; } acc[item] = [...new Set([...acc[item], item])]; return acc; }, {}) console.log(dict);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
2 iterations
On each
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 break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Description** The benchmark compares two approaches to creating and populating a dictionary (an object with key-value pairs) using an array as input. **Approaches Compared** 1. **2 iterations**: This approach uses the `reduce()` method to create the dictionary in two separate iterations. 2. **On each**: This approach uses the `reduce()` method to create the dictionary, but in a single iteration, and also creates a new set on each key-value pair addition. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **2 iterations**: * Pros: May be easier to understand and debug for some developers. * Cons: Requires two separate passes over the array, which can lead to slower performance due to additional memory allocation and garbage collection. 2. **On each**: * Pros: Can lead to better performance since only one pass is required over the array, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead. * Cons: May be more difficult for some developers to understand and debug due to the use of sets. **Library Usage** None mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `Array.from()` is used in the script preparation code to create a large array. **Special JS Features or Syntax** None explicitly mentioned, but note that `reduce()` is being used, which is a functional programming technique. Additionally, the use of arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`\r\n\tif (!acc[item]) {\r\n\t\tacc[item] = [];\r\n}`) are also present. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to implement this benchmark yourself, you could try the following alternatives: 1. Use a loop instead of `reduce()` for both approaches. 2. Use a different data structure, such as an object with key-value pairs initialized manually, to compare performance. 3. Add more iterations or variations to the test cases to increase the complexity and robustness of the benchmark. Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
uniqWith vs uniqBy vs ES6 Set
uniqWith vs uniqBy vs ES6 Set (isEqual)
Lodash "unionBy"vs "uniqBy"
lodash uniq vs spread new Set() medium size
Lodash "uniqWith" "uniqBy" 7
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?