Benchmark: Array fill method vs push in for loop

Tests:

For Loop fill
let arrayTest = new Array(0); for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; i++){ arrayTest.push(0); }
Array Fill
let arrayTest = new Array(10000000).fill(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For Loop fill
Array Fill

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is testing the performance of two different methods for filling an array: `Array.fill()` (also known as "array literal" or "spread operator") and a traditional `for` loop with `push()`. The goal is to determine which method is faster in terms of execution time.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`Array.fill()`**: This method involves creating an array using the `new Array()` constructor and filling it with a specified value (in this case, 0). The number of executions per second for this option is measured in the benchmark result.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with `push()`**: This approach involves creating an empty array, incrementing a counter, and pushing elements onto the array using the `push()` method until it reaches the desired length (100 million in this case).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Array.fill()`**:
	* Pros: Efficient use of memory (only creates a single array object), concise syntax.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers, can throw an error if the array creation fails.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with `push()`**:
	* Pros: Wide browser support, no additional memory allocation required.
	* Cons: Less efficient than `Array.fill()`, requires more code and is less concise.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JavaScript Feature/ Syntax**

The use of array literals (`new Array(0)`) and the spread operator (`fill()` method) are not considered special features, as they have been part of JavaScript since its inception. However, their efficiency and conciseness can make a significant difference in performance-critical code.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors beyond just execution time, such as:

* Memory allocation and usage
* Browser-specific optimizations or limitations
* Garbage collection and scheduling overhead
* Cache behavior and spatial locality

In addition to these options, other benchmarking approaches might include:

* Comparing the performance of different data structures (e.g., arrays vs. linked lists)
* Evaluating the impact of caching mechanisms on benchmark results
* Investigating the effects of parallelization or concurrent execution on benchmarks

Keep in mind that this benchmark is specifically designed to test the performance of these two array filling methods, so it's focused on those aspects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36 Edg/97.0.1072.76

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Loop fill	6.4 Ops/sec
Array Fill	36.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array fill method vs push in for loop (version: 0)

Array fill method vs push in for loop performance validation

Comparing performance of: For Loop fill vs Array Fill

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For Loop fill

Array Fill

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):