Benchmark: Merge array test 2

Script Preparation code:

options = [
  {
    description: "Pack Toit Ouvrant Panoramique Electrique",
    group_name: "exterieur",
    id_equipement: 98327,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [98319, 98216],
    pack_flag: 1,
    prix_ttc: 1400,
    _id: "5bae447a09a33a0342646f9b"
  },
  {
    description: "Rouge Ultimate",
    group_name: "exterieur",
    id_equipement: 98301,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [],
    pack_flag: 0,
    prix_ttc: 830,
    _id: "5bae41b209a33a0342646e5e"
  },
  {
  	description: "Roue galette",
    group_name: "securite",
    id_equipement: 98265,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [],
    pack_flag: 0,
    prix_ttc: 100,
    _id: "5bae446b09a33a0342646f98"
  },
  {
    description: "Pack Toit Ouvrant Panoramique Electrique",
    group_name: "exterieur",
    id_equipement: 98327,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [98319, 98216],
    pack_flag: 1,
    prix_ttc: 1400,
    _id: "5bae447a09a33a0342646f9b"
  },
  {
    description: "Rouge Ultimate",
    group_name: "exterieur",
    id_equipement: 98301,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [],
    pack_flag: 0,
    prix_ttc: 830,
    _id: "5bae41b209a33a0342646e5e"
  },
  {
  	description: "Roue galette",
    group_name: "securite",
    id_equipement: 98265,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [],
    pack_flag: 0,
    prix_ttc: 100,
    _id: "5bae446b09a33a0342646f98"
  },
  {
    description: "Pack Toit Ouvrant Panoramique Electrique",
    group_name: "exterieur",
    id_equipement: 98327,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [98319, 98216],
    pack_flag: 1,
    prix_ttc: 1400,
    _id: "5bae447a09a33a0342646f9b"
  },
  {
    description: "Rouge Ultimate",
    group_name: "exterieur",
    id_equipement: 98301,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [],
    pack_flag: 0,
    prix_ttc: 830,
    _id: "5bae41b209a33a0342646e5e"
  },
  {
  	description: "Roue galette",
    group_name: "securite",
    id_equipement: 98265,
    option_flag: 1,
    pack_content: [],
    pack_flag: 0,
    prix_ttc: 100,
    _id: "5bae446b09a33a0342646f98"
  }
 ];

Tests:

1
const final = options.map(ele => ele.description).filter((ele, i, arr) => arr.indexOf(ele) === i);
2
const final = options.reduce((acc, cur) => acc.some(x=> (x.description === cur.description)) ? acc : acc.concat(cur), []);
3
const toObj = {}; options.forEach((o) => toObj[o.description] = o); const final = Object.values(toObj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what is tested, compared options, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to filter an array of objects based on a specific property (`description`).

1. **Approach 1: `map()` + `filter()`**
```javascript
const final = options.map(ele => ele.description).filter((ele, i, arr) => arr.indexOf(ele) === i);
```
This approach uses the `map()` method to create a new array of descriptions and then applies the `filter()` method to remove duplicates.

2. **Approach 2: `reduce()` + `some()`**
```javascript
const final = options.reduce((acc, cur) => acc.some(x=> (x.description === cur.description)) ? acc : acc.concat(cur), []);
```
This approach uses the `reduce()` method to iterate through the array and accumulate a result. If any element has a matching description, it returns the accumulator; otherwise, it concatenates the current element.

3. **Approach 3: Object creation + `forEach()`**
```javascript
const toObj = {};
options.forEach((o) => toObj[o.description] = o);
const final = Object.values(toObj);
```
This approach creates an object with descriptions as keys and objects from the original array as values using `forEach()`. Finally, it uses `Object.values()` to extract the filtered array of objects.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches across different environments (browsers) on various devices (Desktop). The test results show which approach is faster on each device.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`map()` + `filter()``**
	* Pros: Simple, readable code; efficient memory usage.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array.
2. **`reduce()` + `some()`**
	* Pros: Can be more efficient if the accumulator is reused; can handle larger arrays.
	* Cons: Code can be less readable; may require additional setup for accumulator initialization.
3. **Object creation + `forEach()`**
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement; can be more efficient with large datasets.
	* Cons: May create unnecessary objects in memory; slower due to object creation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark results show significant variations in performance across different browsers and devices, highlighting the importance of testing on diverse environments.
* Approach 2 (`reduce()` + `some()`) appears to be the fastest approach in most cases, but its readability and maintainability may be compromised due to the use of `some()`.
* Approach 3 (Object creation + `forEach()`) has a moderate performance profile, making it a viable option for scenarios where readability is prioritized over raw speed.

Keep in mind that benchmarking results are specific to this particular dataset and may not generalize to other use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Merge array test 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

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):