Benchmark: FieldeasReduce - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<script src=''></script>

Script Preparation code:


 var testData = {
keys: ["ID", "ID_CONTACT", "ID_CHAT", "DATE", "TEXT", "BLOB", "$HDN_BIN_BLOB", "HAS_BLOB", "BLOB_TYPE", "BLOB_DURATION", "BLOB_SIZE", "$HDN_DateTime", "$HDN_XCoord", "$HDN_YCoord", "$HDN_ZCoord", "$PK", "$HDN_IDState", "$HDN_DescState", "$HDN_NumBlob"],
values: []
};
  
  for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    testData.values.push([
    "ID", 
"ID_CONTACT" + i, 
"ID_CHAT" + i, 
"DATE" + i, 
"TEXT" + i, 
"BLOB" + i, 
"$HDN_BIN_BLOB" + i, 
"HAS_BLOB" + i, 
"BLOB_TYPE" + i, 
"BLOB_DURATION" + i, 
"BLOB_SIZE" + i, 
"$HDN_DateTime" + i, 
"$HDN_XCoord" + i, 
"$HDN_YCoord" + i, 
"$HDN_ZCoord" + i, 
"$PK" + i, 
"$HDN_IDState" + i, 
"$HDN_DescState" + i, 
"$HDN_NumBlob" + i
    ]);
  }

Tests:

reduce
var customReduce = data => { var keys = data.keys; return data.values.map(x => { return x.reduce((acc, curr, i) => { acc[keys[i]] = curr; return acc; }, {}) }) } customReduce(testData)
reduce2
function makeAnObject(data) { return data.values.reduce((arr, vals) => { return [ ...arr, vals.reduce((obj, v, i) => ({ ...obj, [data.keys[i]]: v }), {}) ] }, []) } makeAnObject(testData)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
reduce2

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.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript code, like in this case, is essential to understand how different approaches impact execution speed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

1. `reduce`: This test case uses the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to iterate over an array and accumulate values into a new object.
2. `reduce2`: This test case implements its own reduce function, manually iterating over the array and accumulating values.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Built-in Array.prototype.reduce()**: This is the native JavaScript method for reducing arrays. It's implemented in the browser engine (V8) or Node.js (V8).
2. **Custom reduce function (`reduce2`)**: This implementation is written by the user, using a manual loop to iterate over the array and accumulate values.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Optimized for performance by the browser engine or Node.js.
		- Well-tested and widely used.
		- Easier to read and maintain.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be optimal for specific use cases (e.g., large arrays).
		- Less control over implementation details.
* **Custom reduce function (`reduce2`):**
	+ Pros:
		- More control over implementation details (e.g., caching, memoization).
		- Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., large arrays).
	+ Cons:
		- More difficult to read and maintain.
		- Less optimized by the browser engine or Node.js.

**Library**

The `reduce` method is a built-in part of the JavaScript standard library, but it relies on external libraries like V8 or SpiderMonkey (in browsers) or V8 or io.js (in Node.js).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both test cases use standard JavaScript.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method include:

1. **Using a loop**: Implementing a custom loop using `for` loops or `while` loops.
2. **Using recursion**: Using recursive functions to iterate over the array and accumulate values.
3. **Using a library like Lodash**: Utilizing external libraries that provide optimized reduce implementations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may offer more control over implementation details, but also come with their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

FieldeasReduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs reduce2

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

reduce2

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):