Benchmark: load indices - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

let size = 100;
let indices = [];

Tests:

simple for
indices = [], size = 100; for (i = size; i--; ) { indices[i] = i; }
reverse while
indices = [], i = size; while (i--) indices[i] = i;
for-push
indices = []; for (i = 0; i <= size; i++) { indices.push(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple for
reverse while
for-push

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; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/87.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
simple for	192768.9 Ops/sec
reverse while	194119.8 Ops/sec
for-push	154563.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the provided JSON benchmark data.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests how different programming approaches perform when creating an array of indices in JavaScript, specifically:

1. A simple for loop
2. A reverse while loop
3. Using the `push()` method

**Options compared**

There are three test cases, each with a different approach to create the array of indices:

1. **Simple for loop**: `for (i = size; i--; ) { indices[i] = i; }`
2. **Reverse while loop**: `let i = size; while (i--) { indices[i] = i; }`
3. **Using push() method**: `indices.push(i);` (inside a for loop)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Simple for loop**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and straightforward.
	* Cons: Can be error-prone if the loop condition is not correctly implemented.
2. **Reverse while loop**:
	* Pros: Allows for more control over the loop and can be useful in certain scenarios.
	* Cons: May be slower than the simple for loop due to the loop decrement operation.
3. **Using push() method**:
	* Pros: More concise and easier to read, especially for larger arrays.
	* Cons: Can be slower than the simple for loop or reverse while loop because of the overhead of pushing elements onto the array.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark data. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines, including Firefox, use various internal libraries and optimizations under the hood to improve performance.

**Special JS features/syntax**

None are explicitly used or tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to write a similar benchmark, you might consider adding additional test cases, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.fill()` method
* Utilizing `let` variables and block scope for array indexing
* Implementing the loop using arrow functions

Keep in mind that the goal of a benchmark is to measure performance under specific conditions. The choice of approach and testing methodology should be guided by the problem being solved and the target audience.

To prepare the test cases, you would create an HTML file with a script tag pointing to the provided JavaScript code, and then run it using the MeasureThat.net tool or a similar benchmarking framework.

Here's some sample preparation code in Python:
```python
import json

# Load benchmark data from JSON file
with open('benchmark.json', 'r') as f:
    benchmark_data = json.load(f)

# Define test cases
test_cases = [
    {
        "name": "simple for",
        "script": benchmark_data['Script Preparation Code'] + benchmark_data['Benchmark Definition']
    },
    {
        "name": "reverse while",
        "script": benchmark_data['Script Preparation Code'] + benchmark_data['Benchmark Definition']
    },
    {
        "name": "for-push",
        "script": benchmark_data['Script Preparation Code'] + benchmark_data['Benchmark Definition']
    }
]

# Run the benchmark
def run_benchmark(test_case):
    # Create an instance of a JavaScript engine (e.g., V8)
    js_engine = # create_js_engine()

# Execute the test case script
    exec(script, {"js_engine": js_engine})

# Measure performance using MeasureThat.net API
    measurement = measure_performance(js_engine)

return {
        "raw_ua_string": measurement['Browser'],
        "browser": measurement['Browser'],
        "device_platform": measurement['DevicePlatform'],
        "operating_system": measurement['OperatingSystem'],
        "executions_per_second": measurement['ExecutionsPerSecond'],
        "test_name": test_case["name"]
    }

# Run all test cases and print results
results = []
for test_case in test_cases:
    result = run_benchmark(test_case)
    results.append(result)

print(json.dumps(results, indent=2))
```
Note that this is a simplified example and you may need to modify it to fit your specific use case. Additionally, running a benchmark can be complex and requires careful consideration of various factors, such as performance metrics, optimization techniques, and hardware configurations.

Related benchmarks:

load indices (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: simple for vs reverse while vs for-push

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simple for

reverse while

for-push

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):