Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
reduces
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
reduce vs reduce without
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
array = new Array(100)
Tests:
reduce
result = array.reduce( (acc, item) => ({...acc,[item]: item}), {})
reduce without
result = array.reduce( (acc, item) => { obj = {}; obj[item] = item; return obj }, {})
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce
reduce without
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which outlines the rules for testing JavaScript code. Here's what's tested: * **Script Preparation Code**: A script is prepared with an empty array (`array = new Array(100)`). * **Html Preparation Code**: No HTML preparation code is required. * **Test Cases**: There are two test cases: + `reduce`: Tests the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method, which reduces an array to a single value by iteratively applying a function to each element and accumulating a result. + `reduce without`: A variation of the previous test case where the accumulator object (`acc`) is not initialized with `{}`. Instead, an empty object (`obj = {}`) is created inside the callback function. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: * **`Array.prototype.reduce()` method**: The original implementation uses an accumulator object (`{...acc,[item]: item}`) to store the reduced values. * **Variation without initializing accumulator**: A modified implementation creates a new empty object (`obj = {}`) inside the callback function, which is then used as the accumulator. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach: **`Array.prototype.reduce()` method:** Pros: * More concise and expressive code * Easier to read and maintain Cons: * May incur additional overhead due to object creation **Variation without initializing accumulator:** Pros: * Avoids potential overhead due to object creation * Can be more efficient in certain scenarios Cons: * Code is less readable and maintainable, as it introduces a local variable * May lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully **Other Considerations** In general, the choice between these two approaches depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. If readability and maintainability are more important than absolute performance, the original `reduce()` method might be preferred. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method relies on the native JavaScript Array prototype. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases. The focus is solely on measuring the performance of the `reduce()` method and its variations. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following options: * **Using a custom reduce function**: Instead of relying on the native `Array.prototype.reduce()`, you could implement your own reduction function using a loop or recursion. * **Using a library like Lodash**: The popular Lodash library provides an implementation of the `reduce()` method, which can be used as an alternative to the native JavaScript version. * **Measuring performance with other methods**: You could also explore measuring performance using different methods, such as iterating over the array elements directly or using a parallel processing approach.
Related benchmarks:
Basic Array processing benchmark
Test array reduce
Array processing benchmark
Reduce vs new arr creation.
flatMap vs reduce v1.1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?