Benchmark: Push vs Map - repeats

Script Preparation code:

var strs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map(() => 'String concat. ')
var result = []

Tests:

Push
for (let i = 0; i < strs.length; i++) { result.push(strs[i]) } result = [] for (let i = 0; i < strs.length; i++) { result.push(strs[i]) }
Join
result = strs.map((a) => a) result = strs.map((a) => a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Join

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `Array.prototype.push()` (also known as the "push method") and using `Array.prototype.join()`, which is used for concatenating arrays into strings. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster for pushing elements onto an array.

**Options Being Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Push Method**: Using `Array.prototype.push()` to push elements onto the `result` array.
2. **Join Method**: Using `Array.prototype.join()` to concatenate the `strs` array into a single string and then pushing each element of the resulting string onto the `result` array.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Push Method:**
    *   Pros:
        +   More traditional approach for building up an array.
        +   Can be more efficient when dealing with small arrays, since it avoids creating a new string.
    *   Cons:
        +   Inefficient for large arrays because of the overhead of pushing each element individually.
        +   May lead to memory issues if the array grows too large.
*   **Join Method:**
    +   Pros:
        -   More efficient when dealing with large arrays, since it avoids the overhead of pushing each individual element.
        -   Can be faster for concatenating strings.

*   Cons:
        -   Less intuitive and may require more code to achieve the same result as using `push()`.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark. However, note that some browsers might have additional features or optimizations for `join()` that could impact performance.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this, consider the following:

*   Keep the benchmark simple and focused on the specific aspect you want to compare.
*   Ensure the test cases are representative of real-world scenarios.
*   Use a large enough sample size to get accurate results (in this case, 2 executions per second).
*   Consider running benchmarks with different inputs or variations in environment settings to see how the results hold up.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are some options:

*   Using `Array.prototype.splice()` to replace elements at a specific index
*   Utilizing `Array.prototype.fill()` for populating arrays with a single value
*   Examining the performance of different data structures, such as linked lists or trees

Related benchmarks:

Push vs Map - repeats (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Push vs Join

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Join

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):