Benchmark: fill vs manual fill

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Float32Array(1000000);

Tests:

fill
array.fill(Math.random());
manual fill
for (let n = 0, length = array.length, v = Math.random(); n < length; n++) array[n] = v;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fill
manual fill

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON represents two test cases for filling an array with random values:

1. **`array.fill(Math.random());`**: This is a method call on the `Array.prototype.fill()` method, which fills all elements of the array with the value of `Math.random()`. The purpose of this benchmark is to measure how quickly the browser can fill an array using this built-in method.
2. **`for (let n = 0, length = array.length, v = Math.random(); n < length; n++) array[n] = v;`**: This is a manual loop that iterates over the array elements and assigns a random value to each element. The purpose of this benchmark is to measure how quickly the browser can manually fill an array using a loop.

**Comparison**

The two benchmarks are designed to compare the performance of filling arrays using built-in methods (`fill()`) versus manual loops.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Built-in `fill()` method**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time, as it's optimized for performance.
		- Less code to write and maintain.
		- More readable, as it's a standard JavaScript method.
	+ Cons:
		- Limited control over the filling process (e.g., no possibility to fill only certain elements).
		- May not be suitable for all use cases where manual control is required.
* **Manual loop**:
	+ Pros:
		- More control over the filling process, allowing for custom logic and edge cases.
		- Can be used in situations where built-in methods are not available or sufficient.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower execution time, as it involves more code and iterations.
		- Less readable, especially for complex loops.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features mentioned in the provided benchmark. It only uses standard JavaScript syntax and built-in methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.fill()`).

**Alternatives**

If you're looking to benchmark array filling performance, other alternatives might include:

* Using a different data structure, such as an array buffer or a Typed Array.
* Measuring the performance of different types of loops, like `forEach`, `map`, or `reduce`.
* Comparing the performance of various programming languages or JavaScript engines.

Keep in mind that benchmarking can be complex and nuanced. Factors like system resources, input data size, and optimization techniques can significantly affect results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
fill	1296.6 Ops/sec
manual fill	13.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

fill vs manual fill (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fill vs manual fill

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fill

manual fill

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):