Benchmark: Array test length1

Tests:

no counter
const myArray = []; let counter = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) { myArray.push(i); } console.log(myArray[myArray.length-1])
with counter
const myArray = []; let counter = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) { myArray.push(i); counter++; } console.log(myArray[counter-1])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no counter
with counter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.104 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
no counter	22958.5 Ops/sec
with counter	23971.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript arrays by creating an array, pushing elements onto it, and then accessing the last element. The twist comes from whether a "counter" variable is used or not in the script.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Without Counter**: In this variant, only the `for` loop pushes elements onto the array without incrementing a counter variable (`let counter = 0;`). The last element accessed is simply `myArray[myArray.length-1]`.
2. **With Counter**: In this variant, both the `for` loop and the counter variable are used to push elements onto the array (`counter++`). The last element accessed is `myArray[counter-1]`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* Without Counter:
	+ Pros: Simpler code, fewer variables to manage.
	+ Cons: May lead to slower performance due to unnecessary iterations or increments.
* With Counter:
	+ Pros: Can potentially reduce the number of iterations or increments required, leading to faster performance.
	+ Cons: Introduces an additional variable that needs to be managed, which can add complexity.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that `Array.prototype.push()` and `console.log()` are built-in JavaScript methods, so no external libraries are required for this test.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The only special aspect of this benchmark is the use of the `for...of` loop alternative (not explicitly shown in the provided code) to create an array. However, since it's not present in the individual test cases, we can assume that the "with counter" variant uses a traditional `for` loop.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark to compare other approaches, some potential alternatives could include:

* Using different data structures (e.g., `Set`, `Map`, or even an array with typed elements).
* Comparing performance using different optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization, or parallel execution).
* Incorporating additional variables or calculations that affect the performance of the test.

Keep in mind that modifying this benchmark should be done carefully to ensure that the results are still representative and meaningful.

Related benchmarks:

Array test length1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: no counter vs with counter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

no counter

with counter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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