Benchmark: Ramda complex map over large array

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = []

for (var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
	data.push({
		id: i,
		value: 'test',
      	otherValue: 'other test'
	})
}

var realData = {
	toPropagate: {
    	attributes: {
        	id: { name: '1id' },
          	value: { name: '2value' },
            id: { name: '3id' },
          	value: { name: '4value' },
        	id: { name: '5id' },
          	value: { name: '6value' },
            id: { name: '7id' },
          	value: { name: '8value' },
        	id: { name: '9id' },
          	value: { name: '10value' },
            id: { name: '11id' },
          	value: { name: '12value' },
        	id: { name: '13id' },
          	value: { name: '14value' },
            id: { name: '15id' },
          	value: { name: '16value' },
        	id: { name: '17id' },
          	value: { name: '18value' },
            id: { name: '19id' },
          	value: { name: '20value' },
        	id: { name: '21id' },
          	value: { name: '22value' },
            id: { name: '23id' },
          	value: { name: '24value' },
        	id: { name: '25id' },
          	value: { name: '26value' },
            id: { name: '27id' },
          	value: { name: '28value' },
        	id: { name: '29id' },
          	value: { name: '30value' },
            id: { name: '31id' },
          	value: { name: '32value' },
        	id: { name: '33id' },
          	value: { name: '34value' },
            id: { name: '35id' },
          	value: { name: '36value' },
        	id: { name: '37id' },
          	value: { name: '38value' },
            id: { name: '39id' },
          	value: { name: '40value' },
        	id: { name: '41id' },
          	value: { name: '42value' },
            id: { name: '43id' },
          	value: { name: '44value' },
        	id: { name: '45id' },
          	value: { name: '46value' },
            id: { name: '47id' },
          	value: { name: '48value' },
        	id: { name: '49id' },
          	value: { name: '50value' },
            id: { name: '51id' },
          	value: { name: '52value' },
        	id: { name: '53id' },
          	value: { name: '54value' },
            id: { name: '55id' },
          	value: { name: '56value' }
        }
    },
  	data
}

function propagate (realData) {
	return dataItem => {
    	return R.assoc('propagated', realData.toPropagate, dataItem)
    }
}

function propagateDeep (realData) {
	return dataItem => {
      	dataItem.propagated = _.cloneDeep(realData.toPropagate)
      	return dataItem
    }
}

function propagateAll () {
	return R.pipe(
		R.prop('data'),
		R.map(propagate(realData)),
	  	data => { return R.assoc('data', data, realData) }
	)(realData)
}

function propagateAllDeep () {
	return R.pipe(
		R.prop('data'),
		R.map(propagateDeep(realData)),
	  	data => { return R.assoc('data', data, realData) }
	)(realData)
}

function doNotPropagate () {
  	return realData
}

Tests:

Without propagate
doNotPropagate()
Propagate
propagateAll()
Without propagate2
doNotPropagate()
Propagate DEEP
propagateAllDeep()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without propagate
Propagate
Without propagate2
Propagate DEEP

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four functions that propagate data from one object to another:

1. `doNotPropagate()`: Returns the original data without any modifications.
2. `propagateAll()` : Uses Ramda's `R.pipe` function to apply a series of transformations to the data, including propagating it with `realData`.
3. `doNotPropagate()` (again): The same as the first one, but with a different name.
4. `propagateAllDeep()` : Similar to `propagateAll()`, but uses Lodash's `_` function for deep cloning instead of Ramda's `R.cloneDeep`.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four functions on a single test case, which is `doNotPropagate()`. The results are:

| Test Name | Executions Per Second |
| --- | --- |
| Without propagate2 | 3791123.25 |
| Without propagate | 3780382.0 |
| Propagate | 24.74095916748047 |
| Propagate DEEP | 3.79672908782959 |

**Interpretation**

The results suggest that:

* `doNotPropagate()` is the fastest, with an execution rate of over 379 million per second.
* `propagateAll()` and `doNotPropagate()` are significantly slower, with execution rates of around 378 million and 24.7 million per second, respectively.
* `propagateAllDeep()` is the slowest, with an execution rate of only around 3.8 million per second.

**Reasons for differences**

The main reasons for these performance differences are:

* **Overhead**: Ramda's `R.pipe` function has some overhead due to its functional programming paradigm and the need to create a new function for each transformation.
* **Deep cloning**: Lodash's `_` function uses a deep cloning algorithm, which can be more expensive than simple assignment or propagation.
* **Function call overhead**: Each of these functions involves multiple function calls, which can introduce additional overhead.

**Best practice**

Based on the results, it seems that `doNotPropagate()` is the most efficient approach for this specific use case. However, if deep cloning is necessary, using `propagateAllDeep()` might be acceptable if the performance trade-off is justified by the benefits of deep cloning.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda complex map over large array (version: 13)

Comparing performance of: Without propagate vs Propagate vs Without propagate2 vs Propagate DEEP

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Without propagate

Propagate

Without propagate2

Propagate DEEP

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):