Benchmark: slice version 2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:


    const chunkByLoop = (array,size)=>{
        const chunked = [];
        for(let i=0;i<array.length;i++){
            const chunk = chunked[chunked.length-1];
            chunk?.length < size ? chunk.push(array[i]) :  chunked.push([array[i]])
        }
        return chunked;
    }

    const chunkByReduce = (array,size)=>{
        const result = array.reduce(((acc, item)=>{
            const chunk = acc[acc.length-1];
            chunk?.length < size ? chunk.push(item) :  acc.push([item])
            return acc;
        }),[]);
        return result;
    }

    const chunkBySlice = (array,size)=>{
        const chunked = [];
        if (size === 0) 
            return chunked;

        const slicesNumber = array.length%size ? Math.ceil(array.length/size) : array.length/size;
        for(let i=0;i<slicesNumber;i++){
            chunked.push(array.slice(i*size,i*size+size))
        }
        return chunked;
    }
    
    var checkResult = (expected,actual)=>{
        return Array.isArray(expected) &&  Array.isArray(actual) && expected.length === actual.length &&
        expected.every((chunk,index)=> Array.isArray(chunk) && chunk.every(item => actual[index].includes(item)))
    }
    
    
    var funMap = {
        "ByLoop":chunkByLoop,
        "ByReduce":chunkByReduce,
        "BySlice":chunkBySlice
    };

Tests:

BySlice
const chunk = funMap["BySlice"]; const arrEmpty = chunk([],1); console.log("case 1",checkResult(arrEmpty,[])); const simpleCase = chunk([1,2,3,4],2); console.log("case 2",checkResult(simpleCase,[[1,2],[3,4]])); const advancedCase = chunk([1,2,3,4],3); console.log("case 3",checkResult(advancedCase,[[1,2,3],[4]]));
ByReduce
const chunk = funMap["ByReduce"]; const arrEmpty = chunk([],1); console.log("case 1",checkResult(arrEmpty,[])); const simpleCase = chunk([1,2,3,4],2); console.log("case 2",checkResult(simpleCase,[[1,2],[3,4]])); const advancedCase = chunk([1,2,3,4],3); console.log("case 3",checkResult(advancedCase,[[1,2,3],[4]]));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
BySlice
ByReduce

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/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

ByReduce

8K/s

BySlice

6K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ ByReduce	7,581 Ops/sec
BySlice	5,905 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 provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark defines three functions for chunking an array of items into smaller groups:

1. `chunkByLoop`: uses a loop to iterate through the array and push/push elements into chunks.
2. `chunkByReduce`: uses the `reduce` method to accumulate chunks.
3. `chunkBySlice`: uses the `slice` method to divide the array into chunks.

The benchmark also defines a comparison function (`checkResult`) that verifies if two arrays have the same structure and contents.

**Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **"BySlice"`:
	* Verifies that an empty chunk is returned when the input array is empty.
	* Checks if chunks are correctly split for simple cases (e.g., `[1, 2, 3, 4]` with a chunk size of `2`).
	* Tests advanced cases (e.g., `[1, 2, 3, 4]` with a chunk size of `3`).
2. **"ByReduce"`:
	* Similar to the "BySlice" test case, but uses the `reduce` method instead.

**Comparison:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three chunking methods:

1. `chunkByLoop`: uses a loop, which can be slower than other approaches.
2. `chunkByReduce`: uses the `reduce` method, which is often faster and more efficient.
3. `chunkBySlice`: uses the `slice` method, which can be convenient but might not be as fast as `chunkByReduce`.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **chunkByLoop**: Pros: simple to implement; Cons: can be slower due to loop overhead.
* **chunkByReduce**: Pros: often faster and more efficient; Cons: requires understanding of the `reduce` method.
* **chunkBySlice**: Pros: convenient and easy to use; Cons: might not be as fast as `chunkByReduce`.

**Library:**

The benchmark uses a custom `funMap` object that maps string keys to function values. The functions (`chunkByLoop`, `chunkByReduce`, `chunkBySlice`) are not part of any popular JavaScript library.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

* None mentioned in the provided code.

**Alternatives:**

Other chunking methods could be tested, such as:

1. Using a library like Lodash's `chunk` function.
2. Implementing a custom chunking algorithm using recursion or iterative approaches.
3. Testing different data structures, like arrays of objects or matrices.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the project requirements and goals.

slice version 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `BySlice vs ByReduce`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

BySlice

ByReduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

slice version 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: BySlice vs ByReduce

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

BySlice

ByReduce

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: `BySlice vs ByReduce`