Benchmark: Seomthing - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 12345; i++) {
    arr[i] = i > 2 ? 1 : i
}

Tests:

Map
arr.filter((a) => a === 1).map(a => a)
Reduce
arr.reduce((acc, a) => a === 1 ? [...acc,a] : acc, [])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map
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.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The test cases are based on JavaScript microbenchmarks, specifically focusing on two functions: `filter` and `reduce`. The scripts preparation code includes an array `arr` initialized with 12345 elements, where each element is assigned a value of either 1 or itself (if the index is greater than 2).

**Options Compared:**

1. **Filter**: Tests how long it takes to filter an array of 12345 elements and apply a callback function that returns true for every element except those at indices 0, 1, and 2.
	* Pros:
		+ Filters are commonly used in many applications, making this test relevant.
	* Cons:
		+ It's a relatively simple operation, which might not accurately represent real-world usage.
2. **Reduce**: Tests how long it takes to reduce an array of 12345 elements by applying an accumulator function that checks if the current element is equal to 1 and adds it to the accumulator if so.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Both tests measure the performance of fundamental JavaScript operations, making them useful for benchmarking purposes.
* However, they might not accurately represent real-world usage, as the input data is relatively small and the operations are very simple.
* The `filter` test might be more relevant to developers who frequently use filtering in their code, while the `reduce` test might be more useful for those who work with accumulator functions.

**Library Usage:**
None of the provided benchmark scripts include any external libraries. The JavaScript standard library is used exclusively.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**
The benchmark scripts do not contain any special or advanced JavaScript features/syntax, such as ES6 classes, async/await, or modern ECMAScript syntax.

**Other Considerations:**

* The `map` test could be improved by adding more elements to the array or using a different filter condition.
* The `reduce` test might benefit from using an accumulator function that accumulates values instead of just numbers.

**Alternative Benchmarks:**
To provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript performance, consider including benchmarks for other common operations, such as:

1. Array iteration (e.g., using `forEach`, `for...of`, or a custom loop).
2. String manipulation (e.g., concatenation, substring extraction).
3. Object method calls (e.g., `Object.keys()`, `Object.values()`).
4. DOM-related operations (e.g., querying elements, navigating the DOM).

By including these additional benchmarks, developers can gain a better understanding of how JavaScript performs under various scenarios and make more informed decisions when optimizing their code.

Related benchmarks:

Seomthing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map vs Reduce

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map

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):