Benchmark: reduce creation x

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array.from({ length: 10000 }).map((_, idx) => idx)

Tests:

spread insert
data.reduce((acc, val) => ({ ...acc, [val]: val }), {})
assign insert
data.reduce((acc, val) => Object.assign(acc, {[val]: val}))
map
Object.fromEntries(data.reduce((acc, val) => acc.set(val, val), new Map()))
mutation
data.reduce((acc, val) => acc[val] = val, {})
tuple
Object.fromEntries(data.map((v) => [v, v]))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread insert
assign insert
map
mutation
tuple

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_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

tuple

3K/s

map

1K/s

mutation

1K/s

assign insert

256/s

spread insert

118/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ tuple	2,782 Ops/sec
map	1,362 Ops/sec
mutation	1,096 Ops/sec
assign insert	256 Ops/sec
spread insert	118 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

The benchmark is testing different approaches for inserting values into an object using JavaScript's `reduce` method. The test cases vary in how they use `reduce` to create or modify an object, including:

1. **Spread insert**: Using the spread operator (`{...}`) to create a new object and assign values.
2. **Assign insert**: Directly assigning values to the accumulator object using `Object.assign()`.
3. **Map**: Converting the accumulated data into a map (using `Object.fromEntries()`).
4. **Mutation**: Modifying the existing accumulator object directly by assigning new values.
5. **Tuple**: Creating an array of key-value pairs and converting it into an object using `Object.fromEntries()`.

Let's analyze each approach:

*   **Spread insert**:
    *   Pros: Creates a new object, which can be more efficient for large datasets since it avoids mutating the original object.
    *   Cons: May require additional memory allocation, depending on the size of the data.
*   **Assign insert**:
    *   Pros: Modifies the existing accumulator object directly, reducing memory allocation.
    *   Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if the accumulator is not a suitable object type for assignment (e.g., not an object with own enumerable properties).
*   **Map**:
    *   Pros: More functional programming style, can be easier to reason about and debug.
    *   Cons: May require additional memory allocation, depending on the size of the data.
*   **Mutation**:
    *   Pros: Directly modifies the existing accumulator object, which can reduce memory allocation.
    *   Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.
*   **Tuple**:
    *   Pros: Creates an array of key-value pairs and converts it into an object using `Object.fromEntries()`, providing a clear separation between data storage and access.
    *   Cons: May require additional memory allocation, depending on the size of the data.

Other considerations:

*   The test results show that **tuple** has the highest execution frequency (2782.295654296875), followed closely by **map** (1362.27099609375).
*   **Spread insert** and **mutation** have lower execution frequencies (256.4129333496094 and 117.69482421875, respectively).
*   **Assign insert** has the lowest execution frequency (1096.096435546875).

Now, let's look at the library being used:

There is no explicit mention of a specific library in the provided JSON. However, the use of `Object.fromEntries()` and `Array.from()` suggests that the test environment may be using modern JavaScript features that don't require external libraries.

Special JS features or syntax:

*   The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features such as spread operator (`{...}`), arrow functions (`(acc, val) => {...}`, `(v) => [v, v]`), and `Object.fromEntries()`.

Alternatives to MeasureThat.net:

Some alternatives for testing JavaScript microbenchmarks include:

1.  **jsPerf**: A JavaScript benchmarking tool that provides a simple way to measure the performance of different code snippets.
2.  **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight benchmarking library that allows you to write and run benchmarks in your own projects.
3.  **Jest**: A testing framework that can be used for benchmarking purposes, providing a more comprehensive set of features than MeasureThat.net.

These alternatives offer varying degrees of complexity and functionality compared to MeasureThat.net, but they all aim to provide a reliable way to measure the performance of JavaScript code snippets.

reduce creation x (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `spread insert vs assign insert vs map vs mutation vs tuple`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

spread insert

assign insert

map

mutation

tuple

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

reduce creation x (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: spread insert vs assign insert vs map vs mutation vs tuple

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

spread insert

assign insert

map

mutation

tuple

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `spread insert vs assign insert vs map vs mutation vs tuple`