Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array.push
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
normal vs push
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
arr = []
Tests:
normal
arr[arr.length] = "Something"; arr[arr.length] = "Another thing";
push
arr.push("Something"); arr.push("Another thing");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
normal
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON to understand what is being tested in the benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition provides metadata about the test, including: * `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "Array.push". * `Description`: An empty string, indicating that there is no description for this benchmark. * `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These are used to prepare the test script before running it. In this case, they both set up an array variable `arr` with an initial value of an empty array. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **normal**: This test case uses a traditional JavaScript syntax to push elements onto the array. The benchmark definition is "arr[arr.length] = \"Something\";\r\narr[arr.length] = \"Another thing\";". 2. **push**: This test case uses the `push()` method provided by modern JavaScript engines, which is more concise and efficient than the traditional way of adding elements to an array. **Comparison of Options** The two test cases compare the performance of using the traditional syntax (`normal`) versus the modern `push()` method (`push`). Here's a brief analysis of the pros and cons of each approach: * **Traditional Syntax (Normal)**: + Pros: More readable and easier to understand for developers who are familiar with older JavaScript versions. + Cons: Less efficient, as it requires accessing the array length property and indexing into the array manually. * **Push() Method (Push)**: + Pros: More concise, efficient, and widely supported across modern JavaScript engines. + Cons: May be less readable for developers unfamiliar with this syntax. **Library** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the test uses the built-in JavaScript `Array` class or a polyfill to provide the array functionality. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The test case uses the `push()` method, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced with ECMAScript 5. This syntax is widely supported across modern browsers and JavaScript engines. **Alternatives** If you were to rewrite this benchmark using alternative approaches, here are some options: 1. **Loop-based approach**: Instead of using the `push()` method or traditional syntax, you could write a loop that adds elements to the array manually. This would likely be less efficient than both options. 2. **Using a library like Lodash**: You could use a library like Lodash, which provides a utility function for adding elements to an array. However, this would add overhead and might not provide significant performance benefits over the `push()` method. 3. **Testing with different JavaScript engines**: You could test the benchmark with different JavaScript engines or versions to see how they handle the `push()` method versus traditional syntax. Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be as relevant or interesting for this specific benchmark, and the focus should remain on comparing the performance of the two test cases.
Related benchmarks:
push vs unshift
push vs unshift
Array clone
array push
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?