Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test mono and poly arrays
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
mono vs poly
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
mono
const a = new Array(1000).fill(0); let b, c; a.map(n => b = n); a.map(n => c = typeof n);
poly
const a = new Array(1000).fill(0); let b, c; a[0] = 'hello' a.map(n => b = n); a.map(n => c = typeof n);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
mono
poly
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'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: "mono" and "poly". **What is being tested?** In both test cases, an array `a` with 1000 elements is created using the `Array.prototype.fill()` method. Then, the `map()` function is used twice: 1. In the "mono" test case, the map function directly assigns a new variable `b` for each element in the array. 2. In the "poly" test case, the map function also assigns a new variable `c` for each element in the array. The difference between these two approaches lies in how they handle the assignment of variables. **Options compared** In this benchmark, there are two options being compared: 1. **Mono**: Directly assigning to `b` inside the `map()` callback. 2. **Poly**: Assigning to `c` inside the `map()` callback. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** * **Mono** + Pros: - Can be more efficient because it avoids creating an extra variable on the stack. - May reduce memory allocation and deallocation overhead. + Cons: - Can lead to slower performance if `b` is a large object or if its assignment affects the overall execution time of the map function. * **Poly** + Pros: - Allows for more flexibility in handling complex assignments or expressions within the map callback. + Cons: - May incur higher overhead due to extra variable creation and stack management. **Library usage** There is no library explicitly used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `Array.prototype.fill()` and `Array.prototype.map()` are built-in methods on the Array prototype object, so they don't require any external libraries. **Special JS feature or syntax** This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a straightforward comparison of two simple assignment patterns within the `map()` function. **Other alternatives** If you were to optimize this benchmark further, you could consider exploring other approaches, such as: * Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of `Array.prototype.map()`, which might be more efficient for small arrays. * Implementing a custom map implementation using a different data structure or algorithm. * Optimizing the assignment patterns themselves, possibly by using techniques like hoisting or optimizing memory allocation. Keep in mind that these optimizations would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.
Related benchmarks:
of vs array
isArray vs instanceof vs Symbol.iterator
Array type test comparison
Polymorhpic: undefined vs. typeof vs. in vs. hasOwnProperty vs Object.hasOwn
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?