Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
array reuse
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
renew vs reuse
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
renew
var size = 10000; for (var i = 0; i < size; i++){ new Array(31).fill(1).map((_, i) => { return { id: i + 1, text: i } }) }
reuse
var size = 10000; var list = new Array(31).fill(1) for (var i = 0; i < size; i++){ list.map((_, i) => { return { id: i + 1, text: i } }) }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
renew
reuse
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The `array reuse` benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: creating a new array on each iteration (`renew`) versus reusing an existing array (`reuse`). The test cases aim to fill a large array with objects, mapping over it to create a new array of objects on each iteration. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **Renew**: Creating a new array on each iteration using the `new Array(31).fill(1)` syntax. 2. **Reuse**: Using an existing array and modifying its contents by mapping over it to create a new array of objects. **Pros and Cons** ### Renew Pros: * Easy to understand and implement * Reduces memory allocation overhead, as a new array is created on each iteration Cons: * Creates multiple arrays in memory, leading to increased memory usage and potential garbage collection pauses. * Mapping over an existing array can be slower due to the need to traverse and modify its elements. ### Reuse Pros: * Reduces memory allocation overhead by reusing an existing array * Can lead to better cache locality and performance gains due to fewer memory allocations Cons: * Requires careful consideration of array modification and traversal performance. * Can result in increased CPU usage, as the array is repeatedly mapped over. **Library Used** The `fill()` method is used in both test cases. `fill()` is a built-in JavaScript method that sets all elements of an array to a specified value. In this case, it's used to create a large array filled with ones (`1`). No external libraries are used in these test cases. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** None mentioned. **Alternatives** Other approaches to compare might include: * Creating arrays using `Array.from()` or `Array.prototype.slice()` * Using different data structures, such as objects or typed arrays * Implementing the benchmark with a specific JavaScript engine or version By comparing these options, we can gain insights into how different approaches affect performance in this specific use case. In conclusion, the `array reuse` benchmark provides a simple yet informative test case for evaluating the performance of two distinct array creation strategies. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which method to use in their own applications.
Related benchmarks:
Methods to remove duplicates from array
set.add vs array.push Fabien
clearing array via .length = 0 vs. = [] vs. .splice(0)
set.add vs array.push vs map.set fork42
Methods to remove duplicates from array x2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?