Benchmark: Test about big arrays

Tests:

test 1
function generateTestArray() { const result = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) { result.push({ a: i, b: i / 2, r: 0, }); } return result; } const testArray = generateTestArray() const result = new Array(testArray.length); for (let i = 0; i < testArray.length; ++i) { result[i] = testArray[i].a + testArray[i].b; } return result;
tes 2
function generateTestArray() { const result = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) { result.push({ a: i, b: i / 2, r: 0, }); } return result; } const testArray = generateTestArray() return testArray.map((x) => x.a + x.b);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test 1
tes 2

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each with its own benchmark definition. The main focus of these benchmarks is to compare the performance of different approaches for manipulating large arrays in JavaScript.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Direct array manipulation**: In the first test case (`test 1`), a new array `result` is created and populated by iterating over the generated test array using a traditional `for` loop. Each element in the `result` array is calculated by adding the corresponding elements of `testArray` and an intermediate value.
2. **map() function**: In the second test case (`tes 2`), a similar approach is taken, but instead of creating a new array, the `map()` function is used to create a new array with the desired values.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Direct array manipulation (test 1)**:
	* Pros: Can be more intuitive and straightforward for some developers.
	* Cons: Creates an additional memory allocation, which can lead to slower performance due to garbage collection.
2. **map() function (tes 2)**:
	* Pros: Often faster and more concise than direct array manipulation, as it leverages the optimized JavaScript engine's caching mechanisms.
	* Cons: May require understanding of the `map()` function's behavior and limitations.

**Library usage:**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly use a specific library. However, if we consider the `Array.prototype.map()` method used in test case 2, we can argue that it uses the built-in JavaScript Array prototype methods.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these benchmarks.

**Other considerations:**

* The use of a fixed-size array (`1000000`) might not accurately represent real-world scenarios, where arrays may be dynamically resized.
* The tests only run on desktop platforms and with specific browsers (Opera 102). Running the same tests on different platforms, browsers, or devices can provide more comprehensive insights.

**Alternatives:**

If you want to explore alternative approaches or test other aspects of JavaScript performance, you might consider benchmarks for:

1. **Array concatenation**: Measuring the performance impact of using `concat()` vs. `push()` for array growth.
2. **Regular expressions**: Testing the performance of regular expression matching and manipulation.
3. **Async/await**: Comparing the performance of synchronous vs. asynchronous code using `async/await`.
4. **Web Workers**: Evaluating the performance benefits of parallelizing computationally intensive tasks using Web Workers.

Keep in mind that creating new benchmarks requires careful consideration of various factors, including platform, browser, and hardware variations.

Related benchmarks:

Test about big arrays (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test 1 vs tes 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test 1

tes 2

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):