Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array filling
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
map vs literal
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
map
Array(9).fill(null).map(() => Array(3).fill(null))
literal
Array(9).fill([null, null, null])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
map
literal
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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript arrays in two different scenarios: 1. **Literal**: Filling an array with literal values (`[null, null, null]`) using the `fill()` method. 2. **Map**: Creating a nested array structure by filling one array with another array that contains three elements filled with `null` values using the `map()` method. **Options compared** In this benchmark, two main options are being compared: * Literal: Using the `fill()` method to set an array of literal values. * Map: Using the `map()` method to create a nested array structure. **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **Literal (using fill())** * Pros: + Simple and straightforward way to set an array of values. + Can be faster since it's a built-in function that doesn't require dynamic typing. * Cons: + May not be as flexible or expressive as other methods, such as `map()` or destructuring assignment. 2. **Map (using map())** * Pros: + More flexible and expressive than literal values, allowing for complex transformations. + Can be faster since it's a built-in function that doesn't require explicit looping. * Cons: + May have overhead due to the need to create an intermediate array. **Library usage** The `Array(9).fill(null)` syntax is using the `Array` constructor with the `fill()` method, which is not specifically a library. However, some JavaScript implementations may use libraries or extensions that optimize this specific syntax for performance. In this benchmark, it's likely that the `fill()` method is being used directly in the browser's engine. **Special JS feature or syntax** The `map()` function and the spread operator (`...`) are not explicitly mentioned as special features or syntaxes in the provided explanation. However, they are essential concepts in JavaScript that enable functional programming styles and array transformations. **Other alternatives** To achieve similar results to these two approaches: 1. Using a loop: `Array(9).fill(null); var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) { result.push(Array(3).fill(null)); }` 2. Destructuring assignment: `const result = Array(9).map(() => Array(3).fill(null));` **Benchmark preparation code** The provided script preparation code is empty, which means that the test cases are being executed directly in the benchmark environment. Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and concise way to compare the performance of two different approaches: literal values using `fill()` and nested array structures using `map()`. It's an excellent example of how to write effective microbenchmarks for JavaScript.
Related benchmarks:
Zero-fill Uint8Array
fill vs map
TypedArray fill vs loop
fill vs manual fill
fill test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?