Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array fill method vs for loop_
(version: 0)
Array fill method vs for loop performance validation
Comparing performance of:
For Loop fill vs Array Fill
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
For Loop fill
let arrayTest = new Array(10000000); for (let i = 0, l = arrayTest.length; i < l; ++i)arrayTest[i] = true;
Array Fill
let arrayTest = new Array(10000000).fill(true);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
For Loop fill
Array 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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark. The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches for filling an array: using a `for` loop and using the `fill()` method. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **For Loop fill**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to fill an array with 10 million elements with the value `true`. 2. **Array Fill**: This test case uses the `fill()` method to fill an array with 10 million elements with the value `true`. **Comparison** The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster for filling a large array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **For Loop fill**: * Pros: Generally more intuitive and easier to understand, as it's a familiar pattern from other programming languages. * Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of incrementing the loop counter and checking the condition inside the loop. 2. **Array Fill**: * Pros: More concise and expressive, as it directly sets the value for each element in the array without explicit looping. * Cons: May have a slight performance penalty due to the creation of an internal buffer or other underlying optimizations. **Other Considerations** 1. **Library Usage**: The `fill()` method is part of the ECMAScript Standard Library, which means it's implemented by most JavaScript engines and has good support for various optimization techniques. 2. **Special JS Features**: None mentioned in this benchmark, but if special features like `let` or `const` were used, they might impact performance due to additional overhead from variable hoisting or memory management. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, some other methods for filling an array include: 1. **Array.prototype.forEach()**: A loop-free approach using the `forEach()` method. 2. **Array.prototype.map()**: A more concise approach using the `map()` method, which returns a new array with the values transformed or filled. However, these alternatives might have slightly different performance characteristics and may not be as straightforward to understand as the `for` loop or `fill()` methods. In summary, this benchmark aims to provide insights into the relative performance of two approaches for filling an array: traditional `for` looping versus using the `fill()` method.
Related benchmarks:
Array fill method vs for loop
Array fill method vs for loop__
Array fill method vs for loop_q
Array fill method vs for loop small array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?