Benchmark: 1 var vs 2 vars vs 3 vars fill(0)

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(65535).fill(0)

Tests:

Three
var a = array.map((x) => x) var b = array.map((x) => x) var c = array.map((x) => x)
two
var a = array.map((x) => x) var b = array.map((x) => x).map((x) => x)
single
var a = array.map((x) => x).map((x) => x).map((x) => x)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Three
two
single

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features, and alternatives.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case is designed to measure the performance of three different approaches for mapping an array in JavaScript. The goal is to compare the execution speed of these approaches:

1. Using a single variable (`var a = array.map((x) => x)`), mapped twice.
2. Using two variables (`var a = array.map((x) => x)\r\nvar b = array.map((x) => x).map((x) => x)`).
3. Using three variables (`var a = array.map((x) => x).map((x) => x).map((x) => x)`).

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function for mapping an array to a new array with transformed values.

**Special JS Feature**

There's no special JavaScript feature being tested here. It's a simple benchmark comparing different approaches for array mapping.

**Options Comparison**

Here are the options being compared:

1. **Single variable (`var a = array.map((x) => x)`)**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward approach.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance due to unnecessary reassignments and function calls.
2. **Two variables (`var a = array.map((x) => x)\r\nvar b = array.map((x) => x).map((x) => x)`)**:
	* Pros: Allows for better code organization and readability.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the second function call.
3. **Three variables (`var a = array.map((x) => x).map((x) => x).map((x) => x)`)**:
	* Pros: Provides an even more explicit approach, which may be beneficial for developers familiar with this pattern.
	* Cons: Introduces the most overhead due to three function calls.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is running on a Desktop browser (Chrome 109) and measures the executions per second. The results are:

1. Single variable: 687.61 executions/second
2. Two variables: 639.29 executions/second
3. Three variables: 634.52 executions/second

These results suggest that using a single variable for mapping might be slightly faster, but the differences are relatively small.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for array mapping could include:

* Using `forEach()` instead of `map()`
* Utilizing a library like Lodash's `map` function
* Implementing a custom loop or iteration pattern

However, it's essential to note that these alternatives might not provide significant performance improvements and may come with additional overhead due to the added complexity.

Related benchmarks:

1 var vs 2 vars vs 3 vars fill(0) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Three vs two vs single

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Three

two

single

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):