Benchmark: map speed - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

native map
let arr = [1,3,5,7,9,2,4,6,8,0]; let native = arr.map(item => item*2+3);
costume
let arr = [1,3,5,7,9,2,4,6,8,0]; let i=0, len=arr.length, out=new Array(len); for (; i < len; i++) { out[i] = arr[i]*2+3; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native map
costume

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases, each with its own script preparation code.

**Test Case 1: "native map"**

The first test case tests the native `map()` function in JavaScript. In this test case, an array of numbers is created and then mapped to produce a new array with the same length, where each element is the result of performing a specific calculation on the corresponding element in the original array.

**Test Case 2: "costume"**

The second test case tests a custom implementation of the `map()` function. In this test case, an array of numbers is created and then iterated over using a traditional for loop to produce a new array with the same length, where each element is the result of performing a specific calculation on the corresponding element in the original array.

**Options Compared**

In both test cases, the options being compared are:

* Native `map()` function vs. custom implementation
* Performance of the two approaches

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Native `map()` function:**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time due to optimized JavaScript engine
		+ More concise and readable code
	* Cons:
		+ May not be available in older browsers or environments that do not support modern JavaScript features
2. **Custom implementation:**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more flexible and adaptable to specific use cases
		+ May perform better in certain situations (e.g., when working with large datasets)
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and less readable code
		+ May require more memory and processing power

**Other Considerations**

1. **Memory allocation:** The custom implementation requires manual memory allocation using `new Array(len)`, which can lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly.
2. **Browser compatibility:** The native `map()` function is supported by most modern browsers, while the custom implementation may require additional browser support for older versions.

**Library and Syntax Used**

There are no libraries or frameworks mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, some JavaScript syntax features used include:

1. **Arrow functions (`=>`):** Used to define small, one-time-use functions.
2. **Template literals (backtick syntax `'' `):** Not explicitly used in this code snippet, but might be used elsewhere in the benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for testing array mapping performance could include:

1. **Using `reduce()` function:** Instead of using a custom implementation or native `map()`, you could use the `reduce()` function to achieve the same result.
2. **Testing with large datasets:** Increasing the size of the input array to test the performance of both approaches under different conditions.
3. **Comparing with other JavaScript features:** Testing the performance of array mapping using different JavaScript features, such as `filter()`, `forEach()`, or `for...of` loops.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require adjustments to the benchmark code and testing strategy.

Related benchmarks:

map speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native map vs costume

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native map

costume

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):