Benchmark: test mapping page

Tests:

code zul
const page1 = [{ date: '1 maret', list: ['a', 'b', 'c'], }, { date: '2 maret', list: ['d', 'e', 'f'], }, ] const page2 = [{ date: '2 maret', list: ['g', 'h', 'i'], }, { date: '3 maret', list: ['j', 'k', 'l'], }, ] const allPages = [...page1, ...page2]; const finalForm = allPages.reduce((acc, current) => { const accKeys = Object.keys(acc); const dateIndex = accKeys.findIndex(f => f === current.date); if (dateIndex === -1) { acc[current.date] = current.list } else { acc[current.date] = [...acc[current.date], ...current.list] } return acc }, {})
code gpt
const page1 = [{ date: '1 maret', list: ['a', 'b', 'c'], }, { date: '2 maret', list: ['d', 'e', 'f'], }, ] const page2 = [{ date: '2 maret', list: ['g', 'h', 'i'], }, { date: '3 maret', list: ['j', 'k', 'l'], }, ] const mergePages = (pages) => { return pages.flat().reduce((acc, page) => { if (!acc[page.date]) { acc[page.date] = []; } acc[page.date] = acc[page.date].concat(page.list); return acc; }, {}); }; const resultObject = mergePages([page1, page2]); // Convert the result object to the desired array format const resultArray = Object.entries(resultObject).map(([date, list]) => ({ [date]: list }));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
code zul
code gpt

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
code zul	1259932.9 Ops/sec
code gpt	676269.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test created on the MeasureThat.net website.

**Benchmark Overview**

This benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to merge and flatten an array of objects with nested dates and lists. The test consists of two individual test cases, "code zul" and "code gpt", which use different methods to achieve this goal.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Code Zul**: This approach uses the `reduce()` method on the flattened array to group the list elements by date.
2. **Code GPT**: This approach uses a custom function, `mergePages()`, to flatten and merge the pages.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches differ in the following ways:

*   **Flattening Approach**: Code Zul flattens the array before grouping, while Code GPT uses the `flat()` method to flatten the array during the merging process.
*   **Grouping Logic**: In Code Zul, each page is treated as an individual entity, and only when a date is repeated does its corresponding list get appended. In contrast, Code GPT treats each page as part of a group with shared dates.

**Pros and Cons**

### Code Zul (Flattening Approach)

*   **Pros**:
    *   Easy to understand and implement
    *   Works well for arrays with only one set of repeated dates
*   **Cons**:
    *   May perform poorly when dealing with larger or more complex datasets due to increased computation time

### Code GPT (Custom Function Approach)

*   **Pros**:
    *   More efficient than the flattening approach, as it avoids repeated computations on large arrays
    *   Optimized for performance and can handle larger datasets better
*   **Cons**:
    *   Requires more complex understanding of functional programming concepts and might be harder to implement correctly

**Library Used**

None is explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, the use of `flat()` suggests familiarity with modern JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The custom function approach in "code gpt" utilizes a few advanced JavaScript features:

*   **arrow functions**: The `mergePages` function uses arrow functions for concise and readable code.
*   **Object spread operator (`...`)**: The code demonstrates the use of the spread operator to create copies of objects.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure performance for similar benchmarks, consider these alternatives:

1.  **Bench.js**: A high-performance benchmarking library designed specifically for JavaScript applications.
2.  **benchmark**: Another popular benchmarking library that provides features like automatic benchmark generation and comparison.
3.  **js-perf**: An open-source benchmarking tool with support for various testing frameworks, including Benchmark.js.

In conclusion, the MeasureThat.net benchmark showcases two different approaches to merging arrays of objects with nested dates and lists. Understanding the pros and cons of these methods can help you choose the best approach for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

test mapping page (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: code zul vs code gpt

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

code zul

code gpt

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):