Benchmark: Object.forEach vs Reduce

Tests:

forEach
const list = [{pid:1,text:'a'},{pid:2,text:'a'},{pid:3,text:'a'},{pid:4,text:'a'}]; const pl = {}; list.forEach(function(el){ pl[el.pid] = el; });
Reduce
const list = [{pid:1,text:'a'},{pid:2,text:'a'},{pid:3,text:'a'},{pid:4,text:'a'}]; const pl = list.reduce( (pl, el) => { pl[el.pid] = el; return pl; }, {});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
Reduce

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `Object.forEach` and `Array.prototype.reduce`. Both methods are used to iterate over an array and accumulate data into an object.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Object.forEach`**: This method iterates over the elements of an object (in this case, a simulated array) using a callback function.
2. **`Array.prototype.reduce`**: This method applies a reduction function to each element in an array, accumulating a value.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `Object.forEach`:
	+ Pros: Simple to understand and implement, widely supported by browsers.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods due to the overhead of object iteration.
* `Array.prototype.reduce`:
	+ Pros: Efficient, allowing for early termination on empty arrays or null values. Can also accumulate multiple values into a single result.
	+ Cons: Requires an initial value and can be less intuitive for some developers.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, `Array.prototype.reduce` relies on the built-in `Array.prototype` object.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The code only employs standard JavaScript constructs and methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite the benchmark using alternative approaches, some options might include:

* Using a custom loop with an index variable (e.g., `for` loop).
* Employing other array iteration methods like `Array.prototype.map`, `Array.prototype.filter`, or `Array.prototype every`.
* Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `iterable` objects, `Symbol.iterator`, or `async/await`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance benefits as `Array.prototype.reduce`, and their results may vary depending on the specific use case.

Now, let's take a closer look at the benchmark preparation code.

Related benchmarks:

Object.forEach vs Reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs Reduce

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach

Reduce

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):