Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Fill vs spread
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Fill vs Spread
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Fill
Array(1000000).fill().map((_, i) => i)
Spread
[...Array(1000000)].map((_, i) => i)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Fill
Spread
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 benchmark and its options. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark is defined as measuring the performance of two different approaches to create an array of 1,000,000 elements: 1. `Array(1000000).fill().map((_, i) => i)` (Test Case "Fill") 2. `[...Array(1000000)].map((_, i) => i)` (Test Case "Spread") **Options being compared:** The two options being compared are: * **`fill()` method**: This method creates a new array with the specified length, filled with the value `undefined`. The map function is then applied to this array. * **`spread operator` (`...`)**: This operator is used to create a new array by spreading elements of an existing array. In this case, it's used to spread the elements of `Array(1000000)`. **Pros and Cons:** * **`fill()` method**: + Pros: - Can be faster because it avoids creating multiple intermediate arrays. - Can be more memory-efficient since only one array needs to be created. + Cons: - May not work as expected if the initial array is modified or has a specific structure. - May have some overhead due to the need for an extra function call (`fill()`). * **`spread operator`**: + Pros: - Can be more intuitive and readable since it avoids creating multiple intermediate arrays. - Works with any type of array (not just primitive values) without modifying the original array. + Cons: - May be slower due to the creation of multiple intermediate arrays. - Consumes more memory since multiple arrays need to be created. **Library usage:** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `Array` and `Map` functions are part of the JavaScript standard library. **Special JS features or syntax:** None are mentioned in this specific benchmark. **Other alternatives:** If you wanted to include more options, you could consider adding: * Using a custom array creation function (e.g., a loop-based approach) * Using WebAssembly for performance-critical code * Utilizing parallel processing or concurrency techniques (e.g., using `WebWorker` API) Keep in mind that the choice of implementation depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs Math.round() 2
toFixed -> Number vs Math.round
toFixed() vs Math.round().toString()
parseFloat(toFixed) vs Math.round()
toFixed vs Math.round vs |(bitwise or)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?