Benchmark: array test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

pre-allocated
for(var test = new Array(1000), i = 0; i < 1000; i++) test.push(i)
variable size
for(var test = new Array(), i = 0; i < 1000; i++) test.push(i)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pre-allocated
variable size

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pre-allocated	595616.4 Ops/sec
variable size	544929.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing how fast different browsers can create and populate an array of varying sizes using JavaScript. There are two test cases:

1. **Pre-allocated**: This test case creates a new array with a fixed size of 1000 elements and then populates it with numbers from 0 to 999.
2. **Variable Size**: This test case creates a new empty array and then uses a loop to push numbers from 0 to 999 onto the array.

**Options being compared**

The two main options being compared are:

1. **Pre-allocated Array**: Creating an array with a fixed size beforehand and populating it in one go.
2. **Variable Size Array**: Creating an empty array and then dynamically adding elements to it using a loop.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Pre-allocated Array**:
	+ Pros:
		- The browser can allocate memory for the entire array at once, which might be more efficient since it avoids frequent resizing.
		- It's generally faster since there's less work to do in terms of allocating and updating array elements.
	+ Cons:
		- If the allocation fails or is not possible (e.g., due to resource constraints), the test will fail.
* **Variable Size Array**:
	+ Pros:
		- This approach allows for more realistic scenarios where arrays are created dynamically, which might happen in real-world applications.
	+ Cons:
		- It's generally slower since the browser has to frequently resize and allocate memory as elements are added.

**Library usage**

There doesn't seem to be any explicit library usage in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net is designed to work with a wide range of browsers and environments, which might involve using some underlying libraries or frameworks.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

There isn't anything explicitly special about the code snippets provided; they're just standard JavaScript for loops.

**Other considerations**

When designing benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Relevance: Is the test case relevant to real-world scenarios?
* Realism: Does the benchmark accurately reflect the typical use cases and edge cases of the technology being tested?
* Consistency: Are the test conditions consistent across different browsers or environments?

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarking frameworks, some popular options include:

1. **BenchmarkJS**: A modern benchmarking framework that supports a wide range of programming languages, including JavaScript.
2. **JSLint/Benchmarks**: A set of tools developed by Douglas Crockford that includes a benchmarking module for testing JavaScript code performance.
3. **Google's Chrome DevTools**: Offers a built-in benchmarking feature for testing web page and application performance.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

array test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pre-allocated vs variable size

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pre-allocated

variable size

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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