Benchmark: For Push vs Map - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map((_, index) => index);
var result = [];

Tests:

For Push
for (let i = 0; i < strs.length; i++) { result.push(strs[i]) }
Map
result = strs.map((a) => a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For 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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance difference between two approaches: using a `for` loop with `push()` (known as "For Push") and using the `map()` method to iterate over an array (known as "Map").

The test case involves creating a large array of 10,000 elements using `Array.from(new Array(10000)).map((_, index) => index)` and then iterating over this array using either the `for` loop with `push()` or the `map()` method.

**Options compared:**

1. **For Push**: Using a traditional `for` loop with `push()` to iterate over the array.
2. **Map**: Using the `map()` method to transform each element of the array into something new, and then iterating over the resulting array using an array comprehension (i.e., `result = strs.map((a) => a)`).

**Pros and Cons:**

* **For Push**:
	+ Pros: Can be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with traditional loops.
	+ Cons: May require additional memory allocation and garbage collection, as each element is pushed onto the array.
* **Map**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive, allowing for a single pass through the data and reducing memory allocations.
	+ Cons: May be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with array comprehensions.

In general, `map()` can be faster because it avoids the overhead of pushing elements onto an array using `push()`. However, the actual performance difference will depend on various factors, including the size of the input data and the specific JavaScript engine being used.

**Library usage:**

Neither of these test cases uses any external libraries. The `map()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that is supported by most modern browsers and Node.js environments.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two iterative approaches.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to modify the `For Push` approach, you could also consider using other methods like `forEach()` or a traditional `while` loop with an index variable. However, these alternatives are unlikely to change the performance characteristics significantly.

If you wanted to add more variation to the benchmark, you could introduce additional factors such as:

* Using different data structures, like objects or sets.
* Adding random noise or variations to the input data.
* Including other JavaScript features, like closures or async/await.

Keep in mind that microbenchmarks should be used judiciously, as they may not accurately represent real-world scenarios and can be influenced by various factors beyond just the code itself.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Push	235.3 Ops/sec
Map	23859.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

For Push vs Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For Push vs Map

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For 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):