Benchmark: load indices 3(fixed)

Script Preparation code:

let size = 100;
let indices = [];

Tests:

simple reverse for
indices = [], size = 100; for (i = size; i--; ) { indices[size-i] = i; }
reverse while
indices = [], i = size; while (i--) indices[size-i] = i;
for-push
indices = []; for (i = 0; i <= size; i++) { indices.push(i); }
for
indices = []; for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { indices[i] = i; }
reverse for
indices = []; for (i = size; i > -1; i--) { indices[size-i] = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple reverse for
reverse while
for-push
for
reverse for

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 MeasureThat.net, a platform that allows developers to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is the core component of the benchmarking process. It defines the test case(s) to be executed, which in this case are all related to generating an array of indices from 0 to `size-1`. The script preparation code initializes an empty array `indices` and sets a variable `size` to 100.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is used to set up the environment before running the benchmark. In this case, it:

1. Initializes an empty array `indices`.
2. Sets a variable `size` to 100.
3. The script preparation code is not explicitly defined in the provided JSON, but based on the benchmark definitions, we can infer that it will likely be used to define the loop variables and their scope.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is not provided, which means that MeasureThat.net will automatically generate a basic HTML structure for the benchmark.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **simple reverse for**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate from 0 to `size-1`, and assigns each index to the `indices` array using the syntax `indices[size-i] = i;`.
2. **reverse while**: This test case uses a `while` loop to iterate from `size` down to 0, and assigns each index to the `indices` array using the same syntax as above.
3. **for-push**: This test case uses a `for` loop with the `push` method to add elements to an array, and assigns each index to the `indices` array using the syntax `indices.push(i);`.
4. **for**: This test case is identical to the **simple reverse for** test case, except that it does not use the `reverse` keyword.

**Library**

There are no explicit libraries mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic control structures and array manipulation.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these different approaches, consider the following:

* **Memory allocation**: The `for` loop with push method (**for-push**) might allocate more memory due to the dynamic addition of elements to an array.
* **Cache locality**: The traditional `for` loop (**simple reverse for**) and the `while` loop (**reverse while**) may exhibit better cache locality, as they access consecutive elements in a contiguous manner.
* **Loop overhead**: The `while` loop (**reverse while**) might have higher loop overhead due to the need to decrement the loop variable.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark using a different approach, here are some alternatives:

* Use a different data structure (e.g., an array with indices instead of an array of indices).
* Utilize parallel processing or multi-threading.
* Experiment with different optimization techniques, such as loop unrolling or cache-friendly access patterns.

Keep in mind that the specific options and their pros/cons may vary depending on the particular use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

load indices 3(fixed) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: simple reverse for vs reverse while vs for-push vs for vs reverse for

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simple reverse for

reverse while

for-push

for

reverse for

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):