Benchmark: hihihi - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
const arr = [{ sampleData: 'Hello world' }, { moreData: 'foo bar' }]; arr.reduce((map, data) => { return Object.assign(map, data); }, {});
2
const arr = [{ sampleData: 'Hello world' }, { moreData: 'foo bar' }]; Object.assign({}, ...arr.map(data => data));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches to reduce an array of objects:

1. Using `Array.prototype.reduce()`: This method applies a reduction function to each element in the array, reducing it to a single value.
2. Using `Array.prototype.map()` and `Object.assign()`: This approach uses `map()` to create a new array with transformed elements, and then uses `Object.assign()` to merge the resulting objects.

**Options compared**

The two approaches differ in their use of built-in JavaScript methods:

* **`reduce()`**: This method is more efficient for reducing arrays to single values. However, it can be less readable and more complex than other approaches.
* **`map()` + `Object.assign()`**: This approach uses a more traditional programming style, but may incur additional overhead due to the creation of an intermediate array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**`reduce()`**

Pros:

* More efficient
* Can be faster (due to reduced function call overhead)

Cons:

* Less readable for some developers
* May require more complex code

**`map()` + `Object.assign()`**

Pros:

* More readable for some developers
* Allows for easier debugging and testing

Cons:

* May incur additional overhead due to intermediate array creation
* Can be slower (due to function call overhead)

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Readability: If code readability is more important than performance, `map()` + `Object.assign()` might be a better choice.
* Performance: If speed is critical, `reduce()` might be a better option.

**Libraries and special JS features**

Neither of these approaches relies on any external libraries or special JavaScript features (e.g., async/await, promises).

**Benchmark preparation code**

The benchmark preparation code is empty, as per the provided JSON. This means that the test cases only rely on the input data (the array of objects) and no additional setup or preprocessing is required.

Now you know what's being tested on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

hihihi (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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