Benchmark: ForOf+Push vs Map 2

Script Preparation code:

var objs = Array.from(new Array(1000000)).map(() => ({ t: 'hi', v: 'hi'}))
var ts = []
var vs = []

Tests:

For of + Push
for (let x of objs) { ts.push(x.t) vs.push(x.v) }
Map
ts = objs.map(x => x.t) vs = objs.map(x => x.v)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For of + Push
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using `for...of` loops with `push()` to iterate over an array, and using `Array.prototype.map()` to create new arrays. The test case consists of two separate benchmarks:

1. "For of + Push"
2. "Map"

**ForOf+Push Approach**

This approach uses a traditional `for...of` loop to iterate over the `objs` array. Inside the loop, it pushes the value of `x.t` and `x.v` onto the `ts` and `vs` arrays, respectively.

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* No additional libraries are required

Cons:

* Potential performance issues due to the overhead of the `push()` method
* May have higher memory usage compared to other approaches

**Map Approach**

This approach uses `Array.prototype.map()` to create new arrays `ts` and `vs`. The callback function takes an element from the `objs` array (`x`) and returns the value of either `x.t` or `x.v`.

Pros:

* More concise and expressive than the `for...of` loop
* Can be more efficient for large datasets

Cons:

* Requires the use of `Array.prototype.map()`, which may have performance implications
* Creates new arrays, which can consume additional memory

**Other Considerations**

1. **Performance**: The `map()` approach is generally faster than the `for...of` loop because it avoids the overhead of the `push()` method and uses optimized C++ code under the hood.
2. **Memory usage**: The `map()` approach creates new arrays, which can lead to higher memory usage compared to the `for...of` loop.
3. **Browser support**: Both approaches work across different browsers, but some older browsers might not support `Array.prototype.map()`.
4. **Library and Framework considerations**: In some cases, using libraries or frameworks like Lodash or Underscore.js can simplify the implementation of the `map()` approach.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, two libraries are used:

1. `Array.from()`: A modern JavaScript method to create a new array from an iterable.
2. No library is explicitly mentioned for the `for...of` loop implementation, but some older browsers might require additional libraries or polyfills.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for similar benchmarks could include:

* Using `forEach()` instead of `push()`
* Implementing a custom iterator using `RequestIterator` (older browsers)
* Comparing with other iteration methods, such as `for...in` loops
* Using web workers or parallel processing to compare performance

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/93.0.4571.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/93.0.957.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 93 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For of + Push	5.5 Ops/sec
Map	36.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ForOf+Push vs Map 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For of + Push vs Map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For of + Push

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):