Benchmark: hole array test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array1 = new Array(3);  // you get a sparse array with 3 holes
array1[0] = 'a';
array1[1] = 'b';
array1[2] = 'c';

var array2 = ['a', 'b', 'c'];

var temp1 = [];
var temp2 = [];

Tests:

with hole
for (let j = 0; j < 1e5; ++j) { for (let i = 0; i < array1.length; ++i) { temp1.push(array1[i]); } }
without hole
for (let j = 0; j < 1e5; ++j) { for (let i = 0; i < array2.length; ++i) { temp2.push(array2[i]); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with hole
without hole

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with hole	12.7 Ops/sec
without hole	11.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is an object that describes the test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. "with hole"
2. "without hole"

Both test cases have a common script preparation code, which creates two arrays: `array1` and `array2`. `array1` is a sparse array with three elements, while `array2` is a regular array with the same elements.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. "with hole"
	* The benchmark definition uses a loop that iterates over the length of `array1`, pushing each element to an array `temp1`. This will cause issues because of the holes in `array1`.
2. "without hole"
	* The benchmark definition uses a loop that iterates over the length of `array2`, pushing each element to an array `temp2`. Since `array2` is a regular array, this should work as expected.

**Library**

In both test cases, we can see that the arrays are created using the `Array()` constructor or literal syntax (`var array1 = new Array(3)` vs `var array2 = ['a', 'b', 'c'];`). There is no external library used in these examples.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in these test cases. The code looks like standard JavaScript, with the exception of the sparse array `array1`.

**Approaches Compared**

The two test cases are comparing the performance of pushing elements to an array when:

* There are holes in the array (as in `array1`)
* The array is regular and doesn't have any holes

This comparison can help identify whether the browser or engine being tested has issues with sparse arrays or if there's a difference in performance between using a regular array versus a sparse one.

**Pros and Cons**

Comparing these two approaches has both pros and cons:

Pros:

* Helps identify potential issues with sparse arrays
* Can inform optimization decisions for browsers or engines

Cons:

* May not be representative of real-world use cases, as sparse arrays are relatively rare
* Might lead to unnecessary optimizations if the performance difference is small

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a new benchmark, you might consider comparing other scenarios, such as:

* Pushing elements to an array using different methods (e.g., `push()`, `unshift()`, `splice()`)
* Using different data structures (e.g., objects, sets)
* Adding noise or variations to the input data
* Testing performance under different load conditions (e.g., with multiple concurrent tests)

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional benchmarking setup and data collection.

Related benchmarks:

hole array test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with hole vs without hole

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

with hole

without hole

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):