Benchmark: Push vs Map - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map(() => 'String concat. ')
var result = []

Tests:

Push
for (let i = 0; i < strs.length; i++) { result.push(strs[i]) }
Join
result = strs.map((a) => a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:151.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/151.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 151 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	3639.7 Ops/sec
Join	31401.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarking on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition: Push vs Map**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript:

1. **Push**: This test case uses a traditional loop to iterate over an array and push each string to another array.
2. **Map**: This test case uses the `map()` method, which creates a new array with the results of applying a provided function on every element in this array.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Traditional loop using `push()`
* Using the `map()` method to create a new array

**Pros and Cons:**

### Push:

Pros:

* Simple, well-understood approach
* Does not require creating a new array or using functional programming concepts
* Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., concatenating strings in a row)

Cons:

* Creates a new array, which can lead to performance issues if the input size is large
* May involve more overhead due to loop control and condition checks

### Map:

Pros:

* Creates a new array with minimal overhead
* Does not require explicit loop control or condition checks
* Can be more memory-efficient for large inputs

Cons:

* Requires understanding of functional programming concepts (e.g., map, filter)
* May be slower due to the creation of a new array and function calls

**Library:**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark. The `map()` method is a built-in JavaScript feature.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

None mentioned.

**Other Considerations:**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* For small to medium-sized inputs, the traditional loop using `push()` might be sufficient and faster.
* For large inputs or performance-critical applications, the `map()` method is likely to provide better results due to its minimal overhead and memory efficiency.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

1. Using a library like Lodash's `concat` function, which can optimize string concatenation.
2. Utilizing a specialized string manipulation library or utility functions that take advantage of browser optimizations (e.g., WebAssembly).
3. Exploring modern JavaScript features like template literals or string interpolation for efficient string concatenation.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference as a developer.

Related benchmarks:

Push vs Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Push vs Join

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):