Benchmark: Math.min vs Array.reduce

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) data.push(Math.random());

Tests:

Math.min
Math.min(...data);
Array.reduce
data.reduce((min, cur) => min > cur ? cur : min, data[0]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.min
Array.reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min	283402.2 Ops/sec
Array.reduce	4109680.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark outlined in the provided JSON tests the performance of two different approaches to finding the minimum value in an array of random numbers generated in JavaScript. The two test cases are:

1. **Math.min(...data)**
2. **data.reduce((min, cur) => min > cur ? cur : min, data[0]);**

### Comparison of the Options

#### 1. **Math.min(...data)**

- **Description**: The `Math.min` function is a built-in method that returns the smallest of zero or more numbers. The spread operator (`...`) is used to unpack the elements of the `data` array as individual arguments to the `Math.min` function.
  
- **Pros**:
  - **Simplicity**: It's straightforward and easy to read. This makes it a good option for quick implementations.
  - **Performance**: In many JavaScript engines, `Math.min` is optimized for performance, which is evident from the benchmark results as it executes significantly more times per second compared to `Array.reduce`.

- **Cons**:
  - **Argument Limit**: JavaScript has a limit on the number of arguments that can be passed to a function based on the stack size. If the `data` array is too large, you may run into a "maximum call stack size exceeded" error.
  - **Memory Usage**: Spreading a large array can lead to higher memory usage since it creates a new stack frame for each argument.

#### 2. **data.reduce((min, cur) => min > cur ? cur : min, data[0])**

- **Description**: The `reduce` method executes a reducer function (in this case, a comparison function) on each element of the array, resulting in a single output value. It iteratively compares each element to find the minimum value.

- **Pros**:
  - **Flexibility**: Can work on arrays of any size without running into stack overflow issues since it doesn't rely on the argument limits of functions.
  - **Custom Logic**: The reduce method allows for more complex operations if needed, as it can be modified to perform additional computations during the reduction process.

- **Cons**:
  - **Performance**: As per the benchmark results, this approach is slower than using `Math.min`, especially for larger datasets. The reduce method involves more overhead due to its iterative nature.
  - **Complexity**: The syntax may be less intuitive for someone new to JavaScript or functional programming-style methods.

### Other Considerations

- **Execution Context**: The results of the benchmarks are taken from Chrome version 131 on a Mac OS X platform. Performance can vary across different browsers and environments, so it's essential to consider where the code will run.
  
- **Performance and Optimization**: For performance-critical sections of code, understanding these differences is crucial. If frequently processing large arrays, sticking with the optimized native functions (like `Math.min`) can lead to better performance.

### Alternatives

1. **Manual Looping**: Instead of using `Math.min` or `reduce`, one could manually iterate through the array using a for-loop to find the minimum value. This approach can sometimes lead to better performance and allows more control over the process.

```javascript
   let minValue = data[0];
   for (let i = 1; i < data.length; i++) {
       if (data[i] < minValue) {
           minValue = data[i];
       }
   }
   ```

2. **Using a Sorting Algorithm**: Although not efficient for just finding a minimum, another approach could be to sort the array and then pick the first element. However, this has a higher time complexity (O(n log n)) compared to the previous methods, which are linear (O(n)).

3. **Typed Arrays**: If performance is paramount and you are dealing with numbers specifically, you could use JavaScript's Typed Arrays (like `Float64Array`) for better performance on large datasets due to reduced overhead.

In summary, the benchmark illustrates the differences in performance between built-in mathematical functions and array methods in JavaScript, providing valuable insights into effective coding practices for finding minimum values. Choosing the right method depends on the context, dataset size, and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Math.min vs Array.reduce (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Math.min vs Array.reduce

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.min

Array.reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):