Benchmark: Pushy VS Mappy - 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]) }
Map
result = strs.map((a) => a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:142.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/142.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 142 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	1733.6 Ops/sec
Map	7873.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark measures the performance of two JavaScript operations: `push` and `map`. The script preparation code creates an array of 10,000 strings, where each string is a concatenation of "String concat. ". The resulting array is then used to test both `push` and `map` operations.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Push:** This operation iterates through the `strs` array and adds each element to the `result` array one by one.
2. **Map:** This operation applies a transformation function to each element of the `strs` array, returning a new array with the transformed elements.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Push:**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and easy to understand.
		- No additional memory allocation is required, as it only pushes elements onto the existing stack.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of pushing elements one by one.
		- Can lead to higher memory usage if the input array is large.
* **Map:**
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster than `push` since it uses a more efficient data structure (a single allocation for the new array).
		- Reduces memory allocation overhead.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires additional memory allocation, which can lead to higher memory usage.
		- May be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with functional programming.

**Library Usage:**
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the `Array.from()` method and the arrow function syntax (`(a) => a`) are part of modern JavaScript standards (ES6+).

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**
The benchmark uses arrow functions (`(a) => a`), which is a feature introduced in ES6. It also uses the spread operator (`...`), which is used to create an array from an iterable.

**Other Alternatives:**

* Other approaches for iterating over arrays and transforming elements include:
	+ `forEach()` method
	+ `for` loop with an index variable
	+ Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `mapValues()` function

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Pushy VS Mappy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Push vs Map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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