Benchmark: Map Push vs Map return

Script Preparation code:

var strs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map(() => 'String concat. ')
var result = []

Tests:

Push
result = strs.map((a) => { result.push(a) })
Join
result = strs.map((a) => a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.131 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	1326.6 Ops/sec
Join	20201.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON file provides information about a JavaScript microbenchmark named "Map Push vs Map return". The description is null, indicating that there is no specific goal or context for this benchmark. The script preparation code initializes an array `strs` with 10,000 elements, each containing the string `'String concat. '`. Another empty array `result` is created.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Push**: This test case compares the performance of pushing elements onto the `result` array using the `map()` method.
```javascript
result = strs.map((a) => {
  result.push(a);
});
```
2. **Join**: This test case compares the performance of simply returning the mapped values from the `strs` array without modifying the original array.
```javascript
result = strs.map((a) => a);
```

**Options Compared**

The two test cases are comparing different approaches to manipulating the `result` array:

1. **Push**: This approach involves pushing elements onto the `result` array using the `push()` method inside the `map()` callback function.
2. **Join**: This approach simply returns the mapped values from the `strs` array without modifying the original array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Push**:
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for manipulation of the `result` array (e.g., concatenation, filtering).
		+ Can be useful in scenarios where you need to perform operations on the mapped values.
	* Cons:
		+ Involves creating a new array and pushing elements onto it, which can lead to performance overhead.
2. **Join**:
	* Pros:
		+ Does not create a new array or modify the original array.
		+ Can be faster in terms of memory allocation and copying.
	* Cons:
		+ Only returns the mapped values without performing any additional operations.

**Library**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `map()` is a native JavaScript method.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special JS features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create your own benchmark for this scenario, some alternatives could include:

* Using `forEach()` instead of `map()`
* Using an array concatenation approach (e.g., `result = result.concat(strs.map((a) => a))`)
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming utilities
* Adding additional operations to the `map()` callback function (e.g., filtering, sorting)

Keep in mind that each alternative would introduce new variables and assumptions, making it essential to carefully consider the test scenario and goals.

Related benchmarks:

Map Push vs Map return (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Push vs Join

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Join

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):