Benchmark: reduce / new set

Script Preparation code:

var mcus = [{'series':'a'},{'series':'b'},{'series':'c'}]

Tests:

reduce
const res = [...mcus.reduce( (acc, mcu) => acc.add(mcu.series.toString()), new Set() ), ];
new set
const res2 = new Set(mcus.map((mcu) => mcu.series.toString()))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
new set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	2440934.2 Ops/sec
new set	2858717.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance difference between two approaches: using the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to create a set of strings, and using the `Set` constructor to create a set of strings from an array.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an array `mcus` with three objects, each containing a `series` property. This array will be used as input for both test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **"reduce"`**: This test case uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to create a set of strings. The code creates an accumulator variable `acc`, initializes it with an empty string, and then iterates over the `mcus` array, adding each `series` property as a string to the accumulator using the `add()` method.
2. **"new set"`**: This test case uses the `Set` constructor to create a set of strings from the `mcus` array. The code maps over the `mcus` array, converting each `series` property to a string using the `toString()` method, and then passes this array of strings to the `Set` constructor.

**Pros and Cons**

**Reduce Approach:**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient for large datasets since it avoids the overhead of creating multiple sets.
* Can be optimized by using a custom accumulator function that returns a single value.

Cons:

* May not be as intuitive or readable, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the `reduce()` method.
* Can lead to memory issues if the accumulator grows too large.

**New Set Approach:**

Pros:

* Is more explicit and easier to understand, as it clearly separates creation of an array and conversion to a set.
* Does not require creating a temporary accumulator variable.

Cons:

* May be less efficient for very large datasets due to the overhead of creating multiple sets.
* Requires additional memory allocation for the intermediate arrays.

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches assume that the `series` property is a string. If it's not, additional processing may be required to convert it to a string.
* The `reduce()` approach assumes that the accumulator variable can hold arbitrary values; if it needs to hold specific types of data, the implementation will need to adjust accordingly.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. However, both approaches use JavaScript features that are commonly supported across modern browsers:

* `Array.prototype.reduce()`: This method is a standard part of the ECMAScript specification since ECMAScript 2006.
* `Set` constructor: This constructor has been part of the ECMAScript specification since ECMAScript 2015.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to achieve similar results could include:

* Using `map()` and `concat()` instead of `reduce()`.
* Creating a set from an array using a loop (not shown in this benchmark).
* Using other data structures, such as a custom-built data structure or a third-party library.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the approaches tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

reduce / new set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs new set

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

new set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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