var arr = [];
var count = 1000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
arr.push(i);
}
const arrLen = arr.length;
let sum = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < arrLen; i++){
sum ++;
}
const arrLen = arr.length;
let sum = 0;
for (let i = arrLen - 1; i; i--){
sum ++;
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Forward | |
Reverse |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Forward | 1685650.0 Ops/sec |
Reverse | 2275267.5 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark definition is stored in the Script Preparation Code
field:
var arr = []; // empty array
var count = 1000; // test value for loop iterations
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
arr.push(i); // populate the array with values from 0 to 999
}
This code prepares an empty array arr
and sets a count
variable to 1000. It then uses a for
loop to iterate from 0 to 999, pushing each value onto the array.
Options being compared
There are two test cases being compared:
arr.length - 1
, which means the last element is pushed onto the array.arr.length - 1
to 0, effectively pushing elements onto the array in reverse order.Pros and Cons of each approach
Both approaches have their trade-offs:
i
inside the loop.However, the Reverse approach can also have advantages:
Library usage
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.
Special JS features or syntax
None are explicitly used in this benchmark.
Other alternatives
If you were to create your own JavaScript microbenchmark, here are some options to consider:
for
loop, you could use Array methods like fill()
, map()
, or reduce()
to populate the array. This might simplify the code and make it more efficient.Math.random()
for generating random numbers or String.fromCharCode()
for creating characters.Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case and target environment (e.g., browser vs. Node.js).