Benchmark: test another2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const alphabet = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789_'

function build_array(size){
    const a = []

    for (let i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
        let at = (Math.random() * alphabet.length) | 0

        a.push(alphabet[at])
    }
    return a
}

Tests:

push
const arr1 = build_array(500) const arr2 = build_array(500) for(let i = 0; i < 500; ++i) arr1.push(arr2[i])
concat
const arr1 = build_array(500) const arr2 = build_array(500) arr1.concat(arr2)
append
const arr1 = build_array(500) const arr2 = build_array(500) for(let i = 0; i < 500; ++i) arr1[arr1.length] = arr2[i]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
concat
append

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically designed to measure the performance of three different array manipulation operations: `push`, `concat`, and `append`. The benchmark is created using the `build_array` function, which generates an array of random characters.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. **Push**: This option uses the `push` method to append elements to the end of the array.
2. **Concat**: This option uses the `concat` method to concatenate two arrays and then assign the result back into one of the original arrays.
3. **Append**: This option uses the indexing syntax (`arr1[arr1.length] = ...`) to append an element to the end of the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Push**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of incrementing the length property.
* **Concat**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for large arrays since it avoids incrementing the length property.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array object, which can lead to higher memory usage and potentially slower performance in some cases.
* **Append**:
	+ Pros: Simple and efficient, similar to `push`.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly if the indexing syntax is disabled or optimized away by the JavaScript engine.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses a custom library-like function called `build_array` to generate an array of random characters. This function is used in all three test cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `| 0` in the `build_array` function might be considered a "feature" by some developers, as it's an optimization technique to generate a random integer between 0 and the length of the alphabet string.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these operations with alternative approaches, you could consider using other methods such as:

* **Array.prototype.splice()**: Instead of `push`, you could use `splice` to remove elements from the end of the array.
* **Array.prototype.slice() + Array.prototype.push()`: This approach would involve creating a new array by slicing the original array and then pushing new elements onto it.
* **Closures or loops with indexing**: You could also explore using closures or loops with indexing to append elements to the array, which might offer different performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant modifications to the benchmarking script and may not provide meaningful results due to the complexities of JavaScript engine optimizations.

Related benchmarks:

test another2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs concat vs append

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

concat

append

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):