Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
no preallocation / preallocation
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
no preallocation vs preallocation
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
no preallocation
var a = { b: 2, c: 'q' }; a.d = true;
preallocation
var a = { b: 2, c: 'q', d: null }; a.d = true;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
no preallocation
preallocation
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed. **What's being tested:** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: 1. **No preallocation**: This means that no variables or objects are initialized with a specific value before running the benchmark script. 2. **Prelocation**: In this approach, some variables or objects are initialized with a specific value before running the benchmark script. **Options compared:** The main difference between these two approaches is how the object `a` is created and populated with values. In the "no preallocation" case, the object is created without initializing any of its properties, whereas in the "preallocation" case, some properties are initialized before creating the object. **Pros and cons:** * **No preallocation (fastest)**: + Pros: No unnecessary overhead of initialization. + Cons: May lead to slower performance due to dynamic property assignment. * **Prelocation (slower)**: + Pros: Can improve performance by reducing the number of operations required for initialization. + Cons: Adds overhead from initializing properties before creating the object. **Other considerations:** The benchmark may also consider other factors that affect performance, such as: * Memory allocation and garbage collection * Cache locality * Branch prediction and instruction pipeline **Library usage:** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, the use of JavaScript's dynamic property assignment (`a.d = true;`) implies that the `a` object might be created using a library or framework that provides an easy-to-use way to create objects with dynamic properties. **Special JS features:** The benchmark does not appear to use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 features. If it did, I wouldn't be able to provide an explanation without more context. **Benchmark preparation code and test cases:** The provided benchmark definition defines two test cases: 1. The first test case has no preallocation: ```javascript var a = { b: 2, c: 'q' }; a.d = true; ``` This creates the `a` object with dynamic property assignment. 2. The second test case has preallocation: ```javascript var a = { b: 2, c: 'q', d: null }; a.d = true; ``` In this case, some properties (`b`, `c`) are initialized before creating the object, and then additional properties are dynamically assigned. **Alternative benchmarks:** There are other benchmarking approaches that could be used to measure performance differences: * **Micro-benchmarking frameworks**: Other microbenchmarking frameworks like JBM (JavaScript Benchmarking), JSBench, or Benchpress might provide more advanced features and options for measuring performance. * **Real-world scenarios**: Instead of using simple object creation and assignment, benchmarkers could use real-world scenarios that mimic the usage patterns of their application or library. Keep in mind that the specific approach used will depend on the goals and requirements of the benchmarking effort.
Related benchmarks:
Map vs preallocation
Array.map vs preallocation
Map vs preallocation vs push
Map vs preallocation 2
Array.map vs preallocation ckck
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?