Benchmark: Primitive Operations 2

Tests:

Without Primitive
let arr = []; for (let i = 0, len = 10000; i < len; i++) { arr.push(i); }
With Primitive
let arr = []; for (let i = 0, len = 10000; i < len; i++) { arr[arr.length] = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without Primitive
With Primitive

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.

I'll break down the explanation of the provided benchmark into smaller sections.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided Benchmark Definition json represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It is essentially a template for creating and running benchmarks on the MeasureThat.net website. The definition includes metadata such as the benchmark name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code (which are currently empty).

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared in this benchmark:

1. **Without Primitive**: This option uses the array's `push()` method to add elements to the array.
2. **With Primitive**: This option uses the array's indexing syntax (`arr[arr.length] = i`) to add elements to the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Without Primitive (push())**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code
		- Less prone to errors due to explicit length management
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of the `length` property being updated dynamically
* **With Primitive (indexing syntax)**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time, as indexing operations are typically optimized by the compiler
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose and error-prone code, as it requires explicit length management

In general, using `push()` is considered a better practice for adding elements to an array, but in this specific benchmark, the difference in performance between the two approaches may be negligible.

**Library Usage**

Neither of the provided test cases uses any external libraries. The tests only rely on built-in JavaScript features and syntax.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typically covered by the browser's standard library.

**Other Considerations**

When running microbenchmarks, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Garbage collection**: How often garbage collection occurs can impact performance in certain scenarios.
* **Loop unrolling**: Loop unrolling can improve performance by reducing overhead associated with loop control.
* **Cache efficiency**: The way data is accessed and manipulated within the loop can significantly impact cache efficiency.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases or variations, such as:

* Adding more elements to the array
* Using different data types (e.g., strings, objects)
* Comparing performance with different JavaScript engines or versions
* Incorporating other benchmarking tools or frameworks

Related benchmarks:

Primitive Operations 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Without Primitive vs With Primitive

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Without Primitive

With Primitive

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):