Benchmark: fill-fast - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var testArray = new Uint32Array(1024);
testArray.fill(2,0,1024);

Tests:

Using Fill API
var testArray = new Uint32Array(1024); testArray.fill(2,0,1024);
Using iteration
var testArray = new Uint32Array(1024); for(var i= 0; i < testArray.length; i++) { testArray[i] = 2; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using Fill API
Using iteration

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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.1.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using Fill API	570984.9 Ops/sec
Using iteration	695915.4 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 explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The first step in understanding the benchmark is to analyze the provided JSON that represents the benchmark definition. In this case:

* "Name": `fill-fast` indicates that this benchmark compares the performance of two methods: filling an array using the built-in `fill()` API vs. iteration (using a for loop).
* "Description" explains that the array file is faster than iteration.
* The "Script Preparation Code" provides a starting point for the test, creating a 1024-element `Uint32Array` and initializing it with value 2.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Using Fill API**: This test case uses the built-in `fill()` method to set all elements of the array to 2.
	* "Benchmark Definition" is the script that performs this operation.
	* "Test Name" clearly identifies this test case.
2. **Using iteration**: This test case manually iterates through the array and assigns value 2 to each element.
	* "Benchmark Definition" is the script that performs this operation.
	* "Test Name" clearly identifies this test case.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using the built-in `fill()` API
2. Iterating through the array manually using a for loop

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Using Fill API:**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient, as it's implemented in native code.
* Easy to use and read.

Cons:

* May not be compatible with older browsers or versions of JavaScript.

**Iterating through Array Manually:**

Pros:

* More flexible, as it doesn't rely on a specific browser or version of JavaScript.
* Can be used in environments where `fill()` is not supported (e.g., older browsers).

Cons:

* Typically slower than using `fill()`, due to the overhead of manual iteration.

**Other Considerations:**

* This benchmark only compares the performance of these two methods. Other factors, such as memory usage or caching behavior, may also be relevant when working with arrays in JavaScript.
* The choice between `fill()` and manual iteration depends on the specific use case and requirements.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no external libraries mentioned in this benchmark, nor are any special JavaScript features used (e.g., async/await, generators).

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases or variations to this benchmark, some possible alternatives could be:

* Comparing performance using other methods for filling arrays, such as `map()` or `forEach()`.
* Adding additional test cases with different array sizes or element types (e.g., strings, objects).
* Including test cases for specific browser versions or platforms.
* Analyzing the performance of these methods in a real-world application context.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Related benchmarks:

fill-fast (version: 0)

array file is faster than iteration

Comparing performance of: Using Fill API vs Using iteration

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Using Fill API

Using iteration

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):