Benchmark: array vs [] - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

array
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(Array(num)); }
[]
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push([num]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array
[]

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create an array of objects: using the `Array()` constructor and using a literal array `[]`.

**Approaches Compared**

There are two test cases:

1. **`array`**: This approach uses the `Array()` constructor to create an array of objects, where each object has a single property called "num" with the value set to a large number (500). The array is then populated with 100 elements.
2. **`[]`**: This approach creates an empty array and then populates it with 100 elements, each containing a single property `num` with the same large number value.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages:

* **`array`**:
	+ Pros: Can be more flexible if you need to add or remove properties from individual objects in the array.
	+ Cons: May incur a larger memory allocation overhead due to the `Array()` constructor.
* **`[]`**:
	+ Pros: May be faster since it avoids the overhead of the `Array()` constructor and can take advantage of JavaScript's built-in array implementation.
	+ Cons: Requires manual management of each object in the array, which can be error-prone.

**Other Considerations**

In this specific benchmark, the difference between the two approaches is likely to be small, as the number of elements being created (100) and the size of each element (a single property with a large value) might not lead to significant performance variations. However, in more complex scenarios where objects have multiple properties or relationships, one approach might be more suitable than the other.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark, so we can focus on JavaScript's built-in features.

**Special JS Features**

None of the provided test cases use any special JavaScript features beyond standard syntax. If you'd like to explore other aspects, such as memory allocation, garbage collection, or parallel execution, MeasureThat.net may provide additional insights.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring more benchmarking scenarios on MeasureThat.net or similar platforms, here are a few examples:

* **Array performance with different sizes**: Compare the performance of arrays with varying sizes (e.g., 1000 elements, 10,000 elements) to see how they scale.
* **Object creation vs. class-based objects**: Benchmark the performance of creating objects using literals vs. classes to create objects dynamically.
* **Async operations vs. synchronous operations**: Compare the performance of asynchronous operations (e.g., `Promise.all()`) with synchronous operations (e.g., `for` loops) in creating and manipulating data.

Keep in mind that the specific results may vary depending on the JavaScript engine, browser, or platform being used.

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/94.0.4606.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array	26791.1 Ops/sec
[]	1842091.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array vs [] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array vs []

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array

[]

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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