Benchmark: tet1qqqqqq - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var t1=function(){
 var $r=[];
  for(var i=0;i<500;i++)
    $r.push(i,1,i,2,i,3,i,4,i,'qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq',i,5,i,6,i,7,i,8,i,9,i);
  return $r.join('');
};

var t2=function(){
 var $r=[];
  for(var i=0;i<500;i++)
    $r.push([i,1,i,2,i,3,i,4,i,'qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq',i,5,i,6,i,7,i,8,i,9,i].join(''));
  return $r.join('');
};

var t3=function(){
 var $r='';
  for(var i=0;i<500;i++)
    $r+=[i,1,i,2,i,3,i,4,i,'qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq',i,5,i,6,i,7,i,8,i,9,i].join('');
  return $r;
};

Tests:

a
t1();
b
t2();
c
t3();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b
c

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 provide an explanation of the benchmark, its options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking setup on MeasureThat.net. The goal is to compare the performance of different approaches for creating arrays in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are three test cases:

1. **t1**: This function creates an array using the `Array.prototype.push()` method and concatenates strings.
2. **t2**: This function creates an array of arrays, where each inner array is created by calling the `join()` method on a string.
3. **t3**: This function creates a plain string that contains all the values in the correct order, without using the `Array.prototype.push()` or `Array.prototype.join()` methods.

**Pros and Cons**

* **t1**: This approach uses the most traditional way of creating arrays in JavaScript, which is widely supported by modern browsers. However, it may have performance issues due to the repeated concatenation of strings.
* **t2**: This approach creates an array of arrays, which might be less intuitive and slower than the traditional `Array.prototype.push()` method.
* **t3**: This approach creates a plain string that contains all the values in the correct order. It is likely to be faster than both `t1` and `t2`, but it may not be as readable or maintainable.

**Library and Special JavaScript Feature**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark, but there are some special JavaScript features:

* **`Array.prototype.push()`**: This method is widely supported by modern browsers and is the recommended way to add elements to an array.
* **`String.prototype.join()`**: This method is also widely supported by modern browsers and is often used to concatenate strings.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* **Readability and maintainability**: If readability is important, `t3` might be a better choice, as it creates a plain string that contains all the values in the correct order.
* **Performance**: If performance is critical, `t3` is likely to be faster than both `t1` and `t2`, but at the cost of maintainability and readability.
* **Browser support**: All three approaches are widely supported by modern browsers, but it's essential to test them across different browsers and versions.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, here are a few options:

* Use the `Array.from()` method, which creates an array from an iterable:
```javascript
let arr = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
  arr.push(i, 1, i, 2, i, 3, i, 4, i, 'qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq', i, 5, i, 6, i, 7, i, 8, i, 9, i);
}
```
* Use the `Array.push()` method with a string template:
```javascript
let arr = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
  let str = `i: ${i},1,i,2,i,3,i,4,i,'qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq',i,5,i,6,i,7,i,8,i,9,i`;
  arr.push(str);
}
```
Note that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and are not included in the original benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

tet1qqqqqq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b vs c

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

c

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):