Benchmark: 11qwqw - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

qq
[...Array(1000)].map((_, i) => i)
w
Array(1000).fill(null).map((_, i) => i);
e
Array.from({ length: 1000 }, (_, i) => i);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
qq
w
e

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 provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The `Benchmark Definition` represents the JavaScript code that will be executed to measure its performance. In this case, there are three test cases:

1. `[...Array(1000)].map((_, i) => i)` - This code creates an array with 1000 elements and then maps over it to return each index as a value.
2. `Array(1000).fill(null).map((_, i) => i)` - Similar to the first test case, but instead of creating an empty array, it fills it with null values before mapping over it.
3. `Array.from({ length: 1000 }, (_, i) => i)` - This code uses the `Array.from()` method to create an array from an object with a length property.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their execution time. The one that executes faster is considered better for performance.

Pros and Cons:

1. **Array.prototype.map()**: Pros:
	* Widely supported and stable.
	* Allows chaining multiple methods.
Cons:
	* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a temporary array and then mapping over it.
2. **Array.fill(null).map((_, i) => i)**: Pros:
	* Faster because it avoids creating an empty array first.
	* Still maps over an existing array, reducing memory allocation.
Cons:
	* Requires an extra step to create the array with null values.
3. **Array.from()**: Pros:
	* Creates an array from an object, which can be more efficient for large datasets.
	* More concise and expressive syntax.
Cons:
	* May not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in the provided benchmark definitions.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 classes, async/await, or decorators. They only rely on built-in Array methods and JavaScript basics.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite these benchmarks using alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. Use `for...of` loop instead of `map()` for iterative performance.
2. Utilize Web Workers for concurrent execution or parallelization.
3. Leverage native modules (e.g., `webassembly`) for optimized, compiled code.
4. Compare with other JavaScript engines or environments (e.g., Node.js, V8).

These alternatives would require additional changes to the benchmark definitions and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

11qwqw (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: qq vs w vs e

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

qq

w

e

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):