Benchmark: For + Push VS For-Of + Push VS Map, Destructuring VS Indices

Script Preparation code:

var pairs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map(() => ["as", "df"]);
var result;

Tests:

For + Push, Destructuring
result = []; for (let i = 0; i < pairs.length; i++) { const [a, b] = pairs[i]; result.push(a + b); }
For + Push, Indices
result = []; for (let i = 0; i < pairs.length; i++) { result.push(pairs[i][0] + pairs[i][1]); }
For-Of + Push, Destructuring
result = []; for (const [a, b] of pairs) { result.push(a + b); }
For-Of + Push, Indices
result = []; for (const pair of pairs) { result.push(pair[0] + pair[1]); }
Map, destructured
result = pairs.map(([a, b]) => a + b);
Map, indices
result = pairs.map(pair => pair[0] + pair[1]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For + Push, Destructuring
For + Push, Indices
For-Of + Push, Destructuring
For-Of + Push, Indices
Map, destructured
Map, indices

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. **For loop with push**: `for (let i = 0; i < pairs.length; i++) { result.push(a + b); }`
2. **For loop with indices**: `for (let i = 0; i < pairs.length; i++) { result.push(pairs[i][0] + pairs[i][1]); }`
3. **For-of loop with destructuring**: `for (const [a, b] of pairs) { result.push(a + b); }`
4. **For-of loop with indices**: `for (const pair of pairs) { result.push(pair[0] + pair[1]); }`
5. **Map function with destructuring**: `result = pairs.map(([a, b]) => a + b);`
6. **Map function with indices**: `result = pairs.map(pair => pair[0] + pair[1]);`

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of different approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

* Using a traditional `for` loop with `push` (approach 1)
* Using a `for` loop with indexed access to elements (approach 2)
* Using a `for-of` loop with destructuring (approach 3)
* Using a `for-of` loop with indexed access to elements (approach 4)
* Using the `Map` function with destructuring (approach 5)
* Using the `Map` function with indexed access to elements (approach 6)

**Pros and cons of each approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **For loop with push**: Simple and straightforward, but may not be as efficient due to the overhead of `push`.
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons: May be slower than other approaches.
2. **For loop with indices**: Similar to approach 1, but uses indexed access instead of destructuring.
	* Pros: May be slightly faster than approach 1 due to reduced overhead.
	* Cons: Requires manual indexing, which can lead to errors.
3. **For-of loop with destructuring**: A concise and expressive way to iterate over arrays.
	* Pros: Elegant syntax, easy to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the overhead of `for-of` loops.
4. **For-of loop with indices**: Similar to approach 3, but uses indexed access instead of destructuring.
	* Pros: May be slightly faster than approach 3 due to reduced overhead.
	* Cons: Requires manual indexing, which can lead to errors.
5. **Map function with destructuring**: A concise way to transform arrays using the `Map` function.
	* Pros: Elegant syntax, easy to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the overhead of `Map` functions.
6. **Map function with indices**: Similar to approach 5, but uses indexed access instead of destructuring.
	* Pros: May be slightly faster than approach 5 due to reduced overhead.
	* Cons: Requires manual indexing, which can lead to errors.

**Other considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the trade-offs between conciseness, readability, and performance. In general:

* For small datasets or simple transformations, concise approaches (3-6) may be sufficient.
* For larger datasets or more complex transformations, efficient approaches (1-4) may be preferred.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to consider when concatenating strings in JavaScript include:

* Using the `join` method: `result = pairs.join('');`
* Using template literals: `result = pairs.map(pair => `${pair[0]}${pair[1]}`).join('');`

However, these approaches may have their own trade-offs and may not be as efficient or concise as the options listed above.

Related benchmarks:

For + Push VS For-Of + Push VS Map, Destructuring VS Indices (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For + Push, Destructuring vs For + Push, Indices vs For-Of + Push, Destructuring vs For-Of + Push, Indices vs Map, destructured vs Map, indices

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For + Push, Destructuring

For + Push, Indices

For-Of + Push, Destructuring

For-Of + Push, Indices

Map, destructured

Map, indices

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):