Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
fill-fast
(version: 0)
array file is faster than iteration
Comparing performance of:
Using Fill API vs Using iteration
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var testArray = new Uint32Array(1024); testArray.fill(2,0,1024);
Tests:
Using Fill API
var testArray = new Uint32Array(1024); testArray.fill(2,0,1024);
Using iteration
var testArray = new Uint32Array(1024); for(var i= 0; i < testArray.length; i++) { testArray[i] = 2; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Using Fill API
Using iteration
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 is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The first step in understanding the benchmark is to analyze the provided JSON that represents the benchmark definition. In this case: * "Name": `fill-fast` indicates that this benchmark compares the performance of two methods: filling an array using the built-in `fill()` API vs. iteration (using a for loop). * "Description" explains that the array file is faster than iteration. * The "Script Preparation Code" provides a starting point for the test, creating a 1024-element `Uint32Array` and initializing it with value 2. **Test Cases** The benchmark consists of two individual test cases: 1. **Using Fill API**: This test case uses the built-in `fill()` method to set all elements of the array to 2. * "Benchmark Definition" is the script that performs this operation. * "Test Name" clearly identifies this test case. 2. **Using iteration**: This test case manually iterates through the array and assigns value 2 to each element. * "Benchmark Definition" is the script that performs this operation. * "Test Name" clearly identifies this test case. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. Using the built-in `fill()` API 2. Iterating through the array manually using a for loop **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Using Fill API:** Pros: * Fast and efficient, as it's implemented in native code. * Easy to use and read. Cons: * May not be compatible with older browsers or versions of JavaScript. **Iterating through Array Manually:** Pros: * More flexible, as it doesn't rely on a specific browser or version of JavaScript. * Can be used in environments where `fill()` is not supported (e.g., older browsers). Cons: * Typically slower than using `fill()`, due to the overhead of manual iteration. **Other Considerations:** * This benchmark only compares the performance of these two methods. Other factors, such as memory usage or caching behavior, may also be relevant when working with arrays in JavaScript. * The choice between `fill()` and manual iteration depends on the specific use case and requirements. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no external libraries mentioned in this benchmark, nor are any special JavaScript features used (e.g., async/await, generators). **Alternatives** If you wanted to add more test cases or variations to this benchmark, some possible alternatives could be: * Comparing performance using other methods for filling arrays, such as `map()` or `forEach()`. * Adding additional test cases with different array sizes or element types (e.g., strings, objects). * Including test cases for specific browser versions or platforms. * Analyzing the performance of these methods in a real-world application context. I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.
Related benchmarks:
Zero-fill Uint8Array
Array fill method vs for loop
Array fill method vs push in for loop
Array fill method vs for loop test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?