Benchmark: testing flatMap, filter and for..of loop

Script Preparation code:

var customArray1 = [
  {
    advertiser_id: "1",
    name: "Ricardo",
    geolocation: "EC",
    visits_per_month: "6",
    daily_goal: "6",
    url: "http://ricardos.com",
    deleted: "1",
  },
  {
    advertiser_id: "1",
    name: "Leonel",
    geolocation: "CO",
    visits_per_month: "5",
    daily_goal: "5",
    url: "http://leonels.com",
    deleted: "0",
  },
];

var customArray2 = [
  {
    advertiser_id: 1,
    geolocation: "EC",
    visits_per_month: 6,
    daily_goal: 6,
    url: "http://ricardo.com",
    id: 1,
  },
  {
    advertiser_id: 1,
    geolocation: "CO",
    visits_per_month: 5,
    daily_goal: 5,
    url: "http://leonel.com",
    id: 2,
  },
];

Tests:

Test reduce
customArray1.reduce((acc, item1) => { customArray2.forEach((item2) => { if ( String(item1['advertiser_id']) == String(item2['advertiser_id']) && item1['geolocation'] == item2['geolocation'] && item1['deleted'] !== '1' && (item1['visits_per_month'] !== String(item2['visits_per_month']) || item1['daily_goal'] !== String(item2['daily_goal']) || item1['url'] !== item2['url']) ) { acc.push(item1); } }); return acc; }, []);
test flatMap and filter
customArray2.flatMap((item1) => customArray1.filter( (item2) => String(item1['advertiser_id']) === item2['advertiser_id'] && item1['geolocation'] == item2['geolocation'] && (item1['visits_per_month'] !== String(item2['visits_per_month']) || item1['daily_goal'] !== String(item2['daily_goal']) || item1['url'] !== item2['url']) ) );
tetsing with for..of loop
let result = []; for (let item1 of customArray1) { if (item1.deleted !== '1') { for (let item2 of customArray2) { if ( String(item1['advertiser_id']) == String(item2['advertiser_id']) && item1['geolocation'] == item2['geolocation'] && (item1['visits_per_month'] !== String(item2['visits_per_month']) || item1['daily_goal'] !== String(item2['daily_goal']) || item1['url'] !== item2['url']) ) { result.push(item1); } } } }
testing flatMap and filter 2
customArray1.flatMap((item1) => customArray2.filter( (item2) => String(item1['advertiser_id']) == String(item2['advertiser_id']) && item1['geolocation'] == item2['geolocation'] && item1['deleted'] !== '1' && (item1['visits_per_month'] !== String(item2['visits_per_month']) || item1['daily_goal'] !== String(item2['daily_goal']) || item1['url'] !== item2['url']) ) );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test reduce
test flatMap and filter
tetsing with for..of loop
testing flatMap and filter 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

tetsing with for..of loop

22.0M/s

Test reduce

11.2M/s

testing flatMap and filter 2

7.5M/s

test flatMap and filter

7.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ tetsing with for..of loop	21,990,656 Ops/sec
Test reduce	11,220,439 Ops/sec
testing flatMap and filter 2	7,525,118 Ops/sec
test flatMap and filter	7,408,630 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, the options being compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark tests three different approaches to filtering and processing arrays in JavaScript:

1. Using `reduce()`
2. Using `flatMap()` and `filter()`
3. Using a traditional `for...of` loop

**Options Being Compared:**

### Option 1: Using `reduce()`

This option uses the `reduce()` method to accumulate an array of elements that meet certain conditions.

```javascript
customArray1.reduce((acc, item1) => {
    // logic to filter items
    acc.push(item1);
}, []);
```

**Pros:**

* Can be a concise way to process arrays.
* Reduces the need for explicit loops.

**Cons:**

* Can be less readable due to its abstract nature.
* May not be suitable for large datasets or complex filtering logic.

### Option 2: Using `flatMap()` and `filter()`

This option uses the `flatMap()` method to flatten an array of arrays, followed by filtering the resulting array using the `filter()` method.

```javascript
customArray1.flatMap((item1) => {
    customArray2.filter((item2) => {
        // logic to filter items
        return true; // empty filter body is allowed
    });
});
```

**Pros:**

* More readable than the `reduce()` approach.
* Can be more efficient for large datasets or complex filtering logic.

**Cons:**

* May require more code and understanding of array methods.

### Option 3: Using a traditional `for...of` loop

This option uses a traditional `for...of` loop to iterate over the arrays and filter items based on certain conditions.

```javascript
let result = [];
for (let item1 of customArray1) {
    for (let item2 of customArray2) {
        // logic to filter items
        if (/* condition */) {
            result.push(item1);
        }
    }
}
```

**Pros:**

* Most readable and understandable approach.
* No reliance on array methods.

**Cons:**

* May be less efficient for large datasets or complex filtering logic.
* Requires explicit loops, which can be error-prone.

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark results show that the traditional `for...of` loop is the fastest option, followed by `flatMap()` and `filter()`, and then `reduce()`. This may be due to the overhead of array methods or the complexity of the filtering logic.
* The use of `reduce()` can be beneficial when dealing with recursive data structures or complex aggregation logic.
* The use of `flatMap()` and `filter()` can be beneficial when dealing with large datasets or complex filtering logic.

Overall, the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of the project, such as performance, readability, and maintainability.

testing flatMap, filter and for..of loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Test reduce vs test flatMap and filter vs tetsing with for..of loop vs testing flatMap and filter 2`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Test reduce

test flatMap and filter

tetsing with for..of loop

testing flatMap and filter 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

testing flatMap, filter and for..of loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test reduce vs test flatMap and filter vs tetsing with for..of loop vs testing flatMap and filter 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Test reduce

test flatMap and filter

tetsing with for..of loop

testing flatMap and filter 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Test reduce vs test flatMap and filter vs tetsing with for..of loop vs testing flatMap and filter 2`