Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array of undefined
(version: 3)
Comparing performance of:
Create: Push vs Create: Fill vs Read: Push vs Read: Fill
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var pushed = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) pushed.push(undefined); var filled = (new Array(1000)).fill(undefined);
Tests:
Create: Push
const a = []; for(let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) a.push(undefined);
Create: Fill
const a = (new Array(1000)).fill(undefined);
Read: Push
pushed[Math.floor(Math.random()*1000)];
Read: Fill
filled[Math.floor(Math.random()*1000)];
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Create: Push
Create: Fill
Read: Push
Read: Fill
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 and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark consists of four test cases: 1. Creating an array with `push()` (Create: Push) 2. Creating an array with `fill()` (Create: Fill) 3. Reading elements from an array created with `push()` (Read: Push) 4. Reading elements from an array created with `fill()` (Read: Fill) Each test case has a corresponding JavaScript code snippet. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, the following options are compared: * **Push vs. Fill**: Two ways to create arrays of undefined values. + **Pros of Push**: Allows for more control over individual elements, can be used with other methods like `unshift()` or `splice()`. + **Cons of Push**: Can be slower than using `fill()`, as it involves iterating over the array to add elements. * **Read Performance**: Reading elements from arrays created with different methods. **Library Used** None of the test cases explicitly use a library. However, modern JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) have built-in optimizations and features that can affect performance. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code snippets only utilize standard JavaScript constructs. **Other Considerations** When interpreting the results, consider the following factors: * **Array size**: All test cases create arrays of 1000 elements. * **Browser and OS**: Results are reported for Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 10.14.6. * **Execution frequency**: The number of executions per second is a good indicator of performance. **Results Interpretation** Looking at the latest benchmark result, we can see that: * **Read: Fill** consistently outperforms **Read: Push**, indicating that using `fill()` to create arrays might be faster for read operations. * **Create: Fill** performs better than **Create: Push**, suggesting that using `fill()` to create arrays is also more efficient. Keep in mind that these results are specific to Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 10.14.6 and may not generalize to other browsers, OS versions, or execution scenarios. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative benchmarking frameworks or approaches, consider the following options: * **Benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like `benchmark.js` provide more features and flexibility for writing benchmarks. * **Micro-benchmarking tools**: Tools like `micro-benchmarks` offer a simpler, more concise way to write microbenchmarks. However, the provided Benchmark Definition and test cases already offer a clear and concise approach to benchmarking JavaScript array operations.
Related benchmarks:
Spread vs Push in loops
Spread or Push
fill vs push
Array.from() vs new Array() vs push pushup
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?