Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ir1 vs ir2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
ir1 vs ir2
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var args = (new Int32Array(10000)).map(_ => Math.random(1000000));
Tests:
ir1
[0, 1].concat([].slice.call(args))
ir2
[].concat.apply([], [[0, 1], args]);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
ir1
ir2
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is an array of strings, each representing a specific code snippet that will be executed repeatedly in the benchmarking process. In this case, there are two definitions: 1. `[0, 1].concat([].slice.call(args))` 2. `[] .concat.apply([], [[0, 1], args])` **Options Being Compared** These two code snippets represent two different approaches to concatenate arrays: **IR1 (Interpreted)**: The first snippet uses the `concat` method with the spread operator (`[...]`) to concatenate the array `[0, 1]` with the result of calling `slice.call(args)`. This approach is interpreted by the JavaScript engine. **IR2 (Interpreted, but with native code optimization)**: The second snippet uses the `apply` method and an array literal to achieve a similar result. Although it appears to be using interpreted code, some browsers can optimize this expression into native machine code, which can lead to better performance on certain platforms. **Pros and Cons** * **Interpreted (IR1)** + Pros: Easy to read and write, doesn't require special knowledge of browser-specific optimizations. + Cons: May be slower due to interpretation overhead, less optimized for specific platforms or hardware architectures. * **Optimized IR2** + Pros: Can lead to better performance on certain platforms (e.g., mobile devices), uses native machine code when possible. + Cons: Requires knowledge of browser-specific optimizations and may not work in all environments. **Library** In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used. The focus is solely on the JavaScript syntax and interpreter optimization techniques. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are a few features that might be worth noting: * **Spread operator (`[...]`)**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), the spread operator allows for easy creation of arrays from objects, tuples, or other iterable sources. In this case, it's used to expand an array-like object into a new array. * **Native machine code optimization**: Some browsers can optimize certain expressions into native machine code when possible. This is not specific to any particular library but rather a feature of the JavaScript engine itself. **Other Alternatives** If you were to design similar benchmarks, you might consider testing other approaches to array concatenation, such as: * Using `Array.prototype.push` instead of `concat` * Creating an intermediate array and then concatenating it with the original arrays * Using `reduce()` or other aggregation methods Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case and target environment. In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches to concatenate arrays using interpreted JavaScript code, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach and considering alternative techniques.
Related benchmarks:
array vs int32Array
array vs int32array with conversion
array vs int32array without conversion
array vs float32array without conversion 2
array vs float64 for io and slice
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?