Benchmark: sdasdavg2d2dasdqxx

Script Preparation code:

window.DATA = Array(10);

Tests:

map
let result = []; result = DATA.map(d => d + 1); result = DATA.map(d => d + 1); result = DATA.map(d => d + 1); result = DATA.map(d => d + 1);
loop
let result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); } result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); } result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); } result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map	3918262.5 Ops/sec
loop	3015770.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different approaches on various devices.

The provided benchmark definition json consists of a single script preparation code: `window.DATA = Array(10);`. This sets up an array with 10 elements, which will be used as input for the benchmarks.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **map**: This test case uses the built-in `Array.prototype.map()` method to create a new array by applying a transformation function (`d => d + 1`) to each element of the original array.
2. **loop**: This test case uses a traditional `for...in` loop to achieve the same result as the `map()` method.

**Options Compared**

In both test cases, the options being compared are:

* **map() method vs. for...in loop**: The performance of using the built-in `Array.prototype.map()` method versus a traditional `for...in` loop to achieve the same result.
* **No optimization vs. some optimization**: Both tests have variations that use no optimization (`result = DATA.map(d => d + 1);`) and some optimization (`result.push(d + 1)`).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **map() method**:
	* Pros: Shorter code, more concise, and idiomatic JavaScript.
	* Cons: May incur overhead due to the function call and creation of a new array.
2. **for...in loop**:
	* Pros: More control over the iteration process, potentially faster in some cases.
	* Cons: Longer code, less readable, and less idiomatic JavaScript.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, `Array.prototype.map()` is a built-in method, which means it's not an external library, but rather part of the JavaScript language itself.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these benchmarks. They only utilize standard JavaScript methods and constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches for this benchmark, some options could include:

* **Filtering vs. mapping**: Using the `Array.prototype.filter()` method instead of `map()`.
* **Reducing vs. mapping**: Using the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method instead of `map()`.
* **Closure vs. function call**: Using an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) or a closure to achieve the same result as `map()`.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these alternatives may be negligible, and the choice of approach ultimately depends on personal preference, code readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

sdasdavg2d2dasdqxx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs loop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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