Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Pixel map
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
For vs Map
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var width = 1000; var height = 1000; var values = values = new Array(width * height).map(() => Math.round(Math.random()) ? true : false);
Tests:
For
const data = new Uint8Array(width * height * 4); for (let i = 0; i < values.length; i++) { const colorValue = values[i] ? 255 : 0; data[i + 0] = colorValue; data[i + 1] = colorValue; data[i + 2] = colorValue; data[i + 3] = 1; }
Map
const data = new Uint8Array(this.width * this.height * 4).map((_value, index) => { const channel = index % 4; if (channel === 3) return 1; return values[index - channel] ? 255 : 0; });
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
For
Map
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested. **Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of creating a pixel map in JavaScript. The test creates a 2D array (width x height) filled with random boolean values, representing whether each pixel should be colored or not. Then, it iterates over this array to create a Uint8Array representation of the pixel map. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **For Loop**: The first test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and create the Uint8Array. 2. **Map Function**: The second test case uses the `map()` function to achieve the same result in a more concise way. **Pros and Cons** **For Loop:** Pros: * Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with traditional loops * Can be optimized further using techniques like caching or loop unrolling Cons: * Inefficient due to the overhead of the loop counter and increment operations * May not take advantage of modern JavaScript optimizations **Map Function:** Pros: * Concise and expressive code, making it easier to maintain and read * Can leverage modern JavaScript optimizations under the hood Cons: * May be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with functional programming concepts * Requires more memory allocation due to the creation of a new array **Library/Functionality Used** In both test cases, a `Uint8Array` is used to represent the pixel map. The `Uint8Array` type provides an efficient way to store and manipulate 8-bit unsigned integer values. No external libraries are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The use of the `map()` function in the second test case leverages JavaScript's functional programming capabilities, specifically the concept of a "map" operation that applies a given transformation to each element in an array. This is a modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Other Alternatives** If the benchmark were to be written using other approaches, some alternatives could include: * Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of the `for` loop * Implementing the solution using a recursive function or a custom iterator * Utilizing WebAssembly or other low-level technologies for performance-critical code Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be more efficient than the provided solutions and may even introduce additional overhead due to the JavaScript runtime's complexity.
Related benchmarks:
Fisher-Yates Shuffle
getRandomNumberInRange vs getRandomValueInRange 5000
Math.round vs bitRound v2
Set.has v.s Array.includes
yoooooo
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?