Benchmark: mutate-vs-mutate-push

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    arr[i] = {
        name: `${i}`,
        value: i
    };
}

function someFn(i) {
    const x24 = i.value * 3 * 8;
    i.value = x24;
    i.name = `${x24}`;
    return i;
}

Tests:

mutate loop
for (var y of arr) { someFn(y); }
push
const arr2 = []; for (var y of arr) { arr2.push(someFn(y)); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
mutate loop
push

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 and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects: `Benchmark Definition` and `Script Preparation Code`. However, it appears that there's an issue with the provided data. The second object seems to be a script code rather than a test case definition. For the purpose of explanation, I'll focus on interpreting the first object.

The benchmark definition contains:

1. **"Name": "mutate-vs-mutate-push"**: This is the name of the benchmark.
2. **"Description": null**: An empty description field.
3. **"Script Preparation Code": ...**: A script that creates an array `arr` with 1000 elements, each containing `name` and `value` properties.

The provided code is a JavaScript function `someFn(i)` that takes an object `i` as input, modifies its `name` and `value` properties, and returns the modified object. This function appears to be a common pattern used in benchmarking, where you want to modify some value without affecting others.

**Options being compared**

Based on the provided test cases, it seems that two options are being compared:

1. **Using a traditional `for` loop**: The first test case uses a traditional `for` loop (`"for (var y of arr) { ...}"`) to iterate over the array.
2. **Using the spread operator (`of`) and `push()`**: The second test case uses the spread operator (`of`) to create a new array (`const arr2 = []; for (var y of arr) { arr2.push(someFn(y)); }`).

**Pros/Cons of each approach**

1. **Traditional `for` loop**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient in terms of memory usage, as it doesn't require creating a new array.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for complex loops.
2. **Using the spread operator (`of`) and `push()`**:
	* Pros: More concise and easier to read, especially for larger arrays.
	* Cons: Requires more memory allocation for the new array, which might impact performance in some cases.

**Other considerations**

1. **Library usage**: The provided code doesn't use any external libraries. However, if you were to add a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, it could potentially affect the benchmark results.
2. **Special JS features**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark (e.g., async/await, classes, etc.). If such features were present, they would likely impact the benchmark results.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating loops and pushing elements to an array could include:

1. `Array.prototype.forEach()`: A more concise way to iterate over arrays.
2. `Array.prototype.map()` and `concat()`: Another option for transforming and concatenating arrays.
3. Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provides utility functions for common tasks.

It's worth noting that the choice of implementation depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

mutate-vs-mutate-push (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: mutate loop vs push

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

mutate loop

push

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):