Benchmark: Arrays or Objects for Points

Script Preparation code:

var points = [];

Tests:

arrays
points.push([0, 0]);
objects
points.push({"x": 0, "y": 0});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrays
objects

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2987.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 57 on Mac OS X 10.12.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrays	2725293.2 Ops/sec
objects	362682.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options, as well as the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The given benchmark tests two different approaches to push elements onto an array or object in JavaScript: arrays (`points.push([0, 0])`) and objects (`points.push({\"x\": 0, \"y\": 0})`). The goal is to measure which approach performs better.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Arrays**: Using the `push()` method with an array literal (`[0, 0]`).
2. **Objects**: Using the `push()` method with an object literal (`{\"x\": 0, \"y\": 0}`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Arrays:**

Pros:

* Generally faster than objects due to the lack of overhead from objects.
* Can be more cache-friendly since arrays are stored contiguously in memory.

Cons:

* May require additional memory allocation when pushing new elements onto the array, which can lead to slower performance for large arrays.
* Does not support all types of data (e.g., non-primitive values like functions or dates).

**Objects:**

Pros:

* Can store more complex data structures and values (e.g., objects, functions, dates).
* Often results in faster performance for small to medium-sized arrays due to the overhead of creating an object.

Cons:

* Generally slower than arrays due to the overhead from objects.
* May be less cache-friendly since objects are stored in a different memory location.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, the `points` variable is likely an array or object initialized with some default values (in the "Script Preparation Code" section).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark to include more options, here are a few possibilities:

* Using different data structures, such as `Set` or `Map`, instead of arrays and objects.
* Comparing performance with different methods for adding elements to the array or object, like `unshift()` or `splice()`.
* Including additional factors that affect performance, such as:
	+ Array length: testing performance with arrays of varying sizes (e.g., 10, 1000, 10000).
	+ Object property types: testing performance with objects containing different types of properties (e.g., numbers, strings, booleans).

Keep in mind that the results of such modifications would depend on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Arrays or Objects for Points (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrays vs objects

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrays

objects

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):