Benchmark: testArr insertion

Script Preparation code:

const arr = new Array(1000);
window.arr = arr;
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
    arr[i] = (Math.random() * 1000 >> 0) + 50
}

Tests:

indexArr
const indexArr = new Array(1000) for(let i = 0;i < arr.length;i++){ indexArr[i]=arr[i] }
pushArr
const pushArr = new Array(1000) for(let i = 0;i < arr.length;i++){ pushArr.push(arr[i]) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexArr
pushArr

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare different approaches. The benchmark is focused on measuring the performance of two ways to insert random numbers into an array: using `indexArr` and using `push`.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of three parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates a large array (`arr`) with 1000 elements, populates it with random numbers between 50 and 1050 (inclusive), and assigns the array to the global variable `window.arr`.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: There is no HTML preparation code provided in this case.
3. **Benchmark Definition**: This defines two test cases: `indexArr` and `pushArr`.

**Test Cases**

The two test cases differ in how they insert random numbers into the array:

1. **indexArr**: Creates a new array (`indexArr`) and populates it with elements from the original array (`arr`) using indexing (`i < arr.length`).
2. **pushArr**: Creates a new array (`pushArr`) and pushes each element from the original array (`arr`) onto it using the `push()` method.

**Options Compared**

These two approaches differ in their performance characteristics:

* **indexArr**: This approach has O(n) time complexity because it uses indexing to access elements in the original array. It also creates a new array, which can lead to increased memory usage.
* **pushArr**: This approach has O(1) amortized time complexity because it uses the `push()` method, which is optimized for performance. However, it also creates a new array and pushes each element from the original array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **indexArr**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, no extra memory allocation required.
	+ Cons: O(n) time complexity, may not be optimized for performance.
* **pushArr**:
	+ Pros: Optimized for performance, amortized O(1) time complexity.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array and pushes each element from the original array, leading to increased memory allocation.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* If you need to insert elements into an array frequently, `pushArr` may be a better choice due to its optimized performance.
* However, if you're working with large datasets or require low memory usage, `indexArr` might be more suitable.

**Special JS Features**

None of these approaches rely on special JavaScript features or syntax. They are straightforward and easy to understand.

**Library Usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark definition. The code relies solely on built-in JavaScript methods and variables.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of indexing (`i < arr.length`).
* Utilizing `TypedArrays` (e.g., `Float64Array`) to optimize memory usage.
* Exploring other array manipulation techniques, such as using `map()` or `reduce()`.

Related benchmarks:

testArr insertion (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexArr vs pushArr

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexArr

pushArr

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):