Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Testing push in array
(version: 0)
Testing push in array
Comparing performance of:
for vs map with basic function vs map with fat arrow function
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
for
var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; var b = []; for (i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { b.push({"identifier" : a[i]}); }
map with basic function
var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; var b = []; b = a.map(function(i){ return {"identifier": i}; });
map with fat arrow function
var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; var b = []; b = a.map(i => {return {'identifier': i}});
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
for
map with basic function
map with fat arrow function
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark. The test cases are designed to measure the performance of three different approaches for adding elements to an empty array using JavaScript. The approaches are: 1. **For Loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the elements of the original array and push them onto the new array. 2. **map() with Basic Function**: This approach uses the built-in `map()` method, which applies a provided function to each element in the original array and returns a new array with the results. In this case, the function simply creates an object with an "identifier" property set to the current element value. 3. **map() with Fat Arrow Function**: This approach is similar to the previous one, but uses a fat arrow function (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) instead of a traditional function declaration. **Pros and Cons:** * **For Loop**: + Pros: Easy to understand and implement, no additional dependencies required. + Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of the loop and the push operation. * **map() with Basic Function**: + Pros: Efficient use of built-in method, can take advantage of browser optimizations. + Cons: Requires JavaScript version 1.0 or later (since `map()` was introduced). * **map() with Fat Arrow Function**: + Pros: Similar efficiency benefits to the previous approach, but with a more modern syntax. + Cons: May require JavaScript version 5 or later (since fat arrow functions were introduced). Other considerations: * The test cases are likely designed to be run in a browser environment, given the presence of the `map()` method and the use of strings with double quotes (`"identifier": i`). * The benchmark is using a rough estimate of execution time based on the number of executions per second, which may not accurately reflect the performance characteristics of the code. In terms of alternatives, other approaches could include: * Using a library like Lodash or Ramda to perform the mapping operation. * Using a different data structure, such as an array with `push` and `splice` methods, to avoid the overhead of creating a new array. * Using a different language or paradigm, such as Java or Python, which may have built-in support for similar operations. However, it's worth noting that this specific benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code, specifically the three approaches listed above.
Related benchmarks:
spread vs push 2
Pushing items via Array.push vs. Spread Operator
Spread or Push
spread vs push - simple3
Spread Operator vs Push Method
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?