Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test array empty
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
New vs Static
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function execute(fn, arr) { for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { fn(arr) } } var staticEmpty = []
Tests:
New
function mapValues(arr) { return (arr || []).map(x => x + 1) } execute(mapValues, null)
Static
function mapValues(arr) { return (arr || staticEmpty).map(x => x + 1) } execute(mapValues, null)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
New
Static
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):
I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript functions that perform an array mapping operation, specifically finding the difference between two approaches: using a dynamic empty array (`null`) versus a static empty array (`staticEmpty`). **Dynamic vs. Static Empty Array** The `execute` function is used to run the provided JavaScript code with different input arrangements. * In the first test case ("New"), the empty array passed as an argument is set to `null`, which means the code will use the default value of an empty array in that context. * In the second test case ("Static"), a static reference to an empty array (`staticEmpty`) is provided. This allows the code to reuse the same object instance for multiple executions. **Pros and Cons** * **Dynamic Empty Array (Null):** * Pros: * Flexibility: Can be used with any JavaScript environment that supports default values. * Reduced memory usage: No explicit object creation or allocation is required. * Cons: * Potential performance overhead due to repeated array creation and garbage collection. * **Static Empty Array (`staticEmpty`):** * Pros: * Better performance: Reuses the same instance, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection. * Reduced overhead: Fewer allocations mean faster execution times. * Cons: * Inflexibility: Requires explicit management of the `staticEmpty` variable. **Other Considerations** * **Safeguards:** The use of a static reference (`staticEmpty`) helps prevent potential issues with array object identity (e.g., different memory allocations for the same empty array). * **Garbage Collection:** Both approaches may incur some overhead due to garbage collection, but `staticEmpty` is likely more efficient since it avoids repeated allocations. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no specific libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you were to write a benchmark for an existing library or a particular JavaScript feature (e.g., async/await), I'd be happy to explain the details. Now that we've covered what's being tested, I can provide suggestions for alternatives: * If you want to explore other approaches, consider using a library like `lodash` or implementing your own array mapping functions with different optimization techniques. * For measuring performance, you might also look into popular benchmarking libraries such as `benchmark` or `jsperf`. * When creating benchmarks, remember to carefully design your test cases and ensure they accurately represent the scenarios you're interested in testing.
Related benchmarks:
empty an array in JavaScript?
huihuhiuhuh
arr.at(index) vs arr[index]
Empty Array - New vs Static
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?