Benchmark: map test_232323 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map(() => 'String concat. ')
var result = []

Tests:

push
const a = []; strs.map(e => a.push(e)) return a
map, assign
const b = []; a = strs.map(e => (e)) return a

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
map, assign

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 benchmark test cases: `map, assign` and `push`. The tests measure the performance of two different approaches to using the `Array.prototype.map()` method in JavaScript.

**Options being compared:**

In the first test case, `map, assign`, the code assigns the result of `strs.map(e => (e))` to a new array variable `a`. This approach is often used when you want to preserve the original elements of the input array and create a new copy with transformed values.

In the second test case, `push`, the code uses `Array.prototype.push()` method directly on the result of `strs.map(e => a.push(e))`. This approach modifies the original array in-place by pushing elements onto it.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **map, assign**: This approach has several advantages:
	+ It preserves the original input array.
	+ It can be more efficient when dealing with large datasets, as it avoids modifying the original array.
	+ It is often considered a more "JavaScript-way" of doing things, as it follows the language's convention of returning an array from `map()`.
* However, this approach also has some disadvantages:
	+ It creates a new array and copies all elements, which can be memory-intensive for large datasets.
	+ It may not be optimal when dealing with very large inputs, as JavaScript arrays have memory limitations.

* **push**: This approach has some advantages:
	+ It is more memory-efficient, as it modifies the original array in-place without creating a new one.
	+ It can be faster for very large inputs, since it avoids the overhead of creating a new array.
* However, this approach also has some disadvantages:
	+ It modifies the original input array, which may not be desirable in some cases.
	+ It can lead to unexpected behavior if the caller of `map()` doesn't expect modifications.

**Library and syntax:**

There is no library being used in these benchmark test cases. The code only uses built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 classes, async/await, or Web Workers.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to measuring JavaScript performance, some options include:

* Using a different JavaScript engine, such as V8 (used by Node.js) or SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox)
* Compiling your JavaScript code to machine code using tools like Emscripten
* Using a benchmarking library like Benchmark.js or jsperf

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and may not provide the same results as MeasureThat.net's benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

map test_232323 (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: push vs map, assign

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

map, assign

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):