Benchmark: For Push vs Map Test Oke

Script Preparation code:

var datas = [
    {
        id: "1",
        name: "One"
    },
        {
        id: "2",
        name: "Two"
    },
        {
        id: "3",
        name: "Three"
    },
        {
        id: "4",
        name: "Four"
    },
        {
        id: "5",
        name: "Five"
    },
]

Tests:

For Push
let tempData = []; for (const item of datas) { tempData.push({ value: item.id, label: item.name }); }
Map
let tempData = datas.map((item) => ({ value: item.id, label: item.name }));

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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Push	16644561.0 Ops/sec
Map	16204683.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of two approaches to iterate over an array and create a new array with similar data:

1. **Push**: Using the `push()` method to add elements to the end of an array.
2. **Map**: Using the `map()` function to create a new array by applying a transformation function to each element.

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being compared in terms of their execution time and performance. The test case uses a fixed dataset of 5 objects, which are stored in the `datas` variable.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Push**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simple to implement.
		- Fast for small datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- Slow for large datasets due to the overhead of repeatedly checking the length of the array.
		- Not as efficient as `map()` in terms of performance, but this can vary depending on the specific use case.
* **Map**:
	+ Pros:
		- Fast and efficient for large datasets.
		- Can be more concise and expressive than using a loop with `push()`.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be less intuitive for beginners or those not familiar with functional programming concepts.

**Library and syntax used**

In this case, no specific libraries are being used beyond the built-in JavaScript features of arrays (`push()` and `map()`). However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional optimizations or performance enhancements applied to these built-in methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The `let` keyword is used to declare variables in both test cases. This is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and is now widely supported across most modern browsers.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to compare the performance of these two approaches, you could also consider using other iteration methods, such as:

* **For` loops**: Using traditional `for` loops to iterate over an array.
* **forEach()`: Using the `forEach()` method on an array, which is similar to `map()` but returns `undefined` instead of a new array.
* **Reduce()`: Using the `reduce()` method on an array, which applies a reduction function to each element and returns a single value.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to `push()` and `map()`, depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

For Push vs Map Test Oke (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For Push vs Map

Created: one year 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 one month ago):