Benchmark: kmionnomij - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

let hello = [1, 2];

Tests:

push
let hello = [1, 2]; hello.push(3);
spread
let hello = [1, 2]; hello = [...hello, 3]
spread in new const
const hello = [1, 2]; const newHello = [...hello, 3];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
spread
spread in new const

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 break down the provided benchmarking test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The Benchmark Definition JSON is a simple representation of the JavaScript code that will be executed by the testing framework. It contains four essential elements:

1. **Name**: A unique identifier for the benchmark.
2. **Description**: A brief description of the benchmark (in this case, "nj").
3. **Script Preparation Code**: The initial JavaScript code that is run before each test case. In this example, it's a simple `let` declaration with an array initialization: `let hello = [1, 2];`.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: An empty string (`null`), indicating that no HTML preparation is required for these benchmarks.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Push**
	* Benchmark Definition: `hello.push(3);`
	* Purpose: This test case measures the performance of the `push()` method on an array.
2. **Spread**
	* Benchmark Definition: `hello = [...hello, 3];`
	* Purpose: This test case measures the performance of the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by copying and appending elements from an existing array.
3. **Spread in New Const**
	* Benchmark Definition: `const newHello = [...hello, 3];`
	* Purpose: This test case is similar to the previous one but uses a `const` declaration instead of `let`.

**Library Usage**

There are no explicitly mentioned libraries in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript's built-in features, such as arrays and object literals, serve as the primary focus for these tests.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases specifically utilize any advanced JavaScript features or syntax, such as `async/await`, promises, generators, or transpilation-specific code. The tests seem to be focused on the fundamental operations with arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

The three test cases differ primarily in their approach to creating a new array:

* **Push**: This method is more efficient because it only modifies the existing array object in-place.
* **Spread**: This method creates a new, independent array by copying elements from an existing array. While it's less efficient than `push`, it can be useful for other purposes, such as creating copies of arrays or avoiding modifying original data.

In terms of performance considerations:

* The `push()` method is generally faster because it only requires accessing the last element of the array and updating its value.
* The spread operator (`...`) can be slower due to the creation of a new array object, even if it's using a copy-on-write mechanism (like modern JavaScript engines do).

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to extend these benchmarking tests, you might consider adding:

* Additional test cases that explore different aspects of arrays, such as `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()`.
* Tests for other data structures, like sets or objects.
* Benchmarks for libraries or frameworks that rely heavily on arrays, such as React or Angular.

By expanding the scope of these tests, you can gain a better understanding of how different JavaScript features and libraries perform under various workloads.

Related benchmarks:

kmionnomij (version: 0)

nj

Comparing performance of: push vs spread vs spread in new const

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

spread

spread in new const

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):