Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test array push and
(version: 0)
test
Comparing performance of:
q vs 2
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
q
const millis = new Date().getTime(); const timeCount = 48; const times = new Array(timeCount); const clone = new Date(millis); for (let i = 0; i <= timeCount; i++) { times[i] = clone; clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30); }
2
const millis = new Date().getTime(); const timeCount = 48; const times = new Array(timeCount); const clone = new Date(millis); for (let i = 0; i <= timeCount; i++) { times.push(clone); clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
q
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript arrays, specifically comparing two approaches: using `Array.prototype.push()` versus using a traditional indexing approach (assigning each element to an index in the array). **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **"q"`**: This test case uses the traditional indexing approach, where each element is assigned to a specific index in the array (`times[i] = clone;`). The loop increments the index from 0 to `timeCount`. 2. **"2"`**: This test case uses the `Array.prototype.push()` method to add elements to the end of the array. In this implementation, the loop simply pushes the cloned date object onto the end of the array (`times.push(clone);`). **Comparison** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches: * **Traditional indexing approach (q)**: Each element is assigned to a specific index in the array. * **Push-based approach (2)**: Elements are added to the end of the array using `Array.prototype.push()`. **Pros and Cons of each approach** **Traditional indexing approach (q)** Pros: * Efficient memory usage, as elements are stored contiguously in memory. * Potential for better cache locality, as elements are accessed sequentially. Cons: * Can be slower due to the need to calculate index values dynamically. * May require more CPU cycles for memory management. **Push-based approach (2)** Pros: * Easy to implement and maintain. * Can take advantage of optimizations in the `Array.prototype.push()` method. Cons: * Can lead to poor cache locality, as elements are added to the end of the array. * May result in slower performance due to the overhead of `push()`. **Library and Special JS Features** In this benchmark, there is no explicit use of a library or special JavaScript features. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Array.prototype.push()` relies on the browser's implementation of the `push()` method, which may vary between implementations. **Other Alternatives** If you were to extend this benchmark, you could consider adding additional test cases for: * Using `Array.prototype.splice()` instead of `push()`. * Comparing performance with different array constructors (e.g., `Array.from()`, `Array.of()`). * Examining the impact of array resizing or reallocation on performance. * Evaluating the effect of using different data types (e.g., numbers, strings, objects) in the array. Keep in mind that these additional test cases would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and implementation.
Related benchmarks:
spread vs push 2
spread vs push - simple2
spread vs push - simple3
Spread Operator vs Push Method
spread or push on large array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?