Benchmark: Test push spread map2

Script Preparation code:

var map1 = new Map([
  ['key1', 'value1'],
  ['key2', 'value2'],
  ['key3', 'value3']
]);

var map2 = new Map([
  ['key4', 'value4'],
  ['key5', 'value5'],
  ['key6', 'value6']
]);

Tests:

spread
const keysFromMap1 = Array.from(map1.keys()); const keysFromMap2 = Array.from(map2.keys()); // Concatenate keys from both maps const allKeys = [...keysFromMap1, ...keysFromMap2]; console.log(allKeys);
push
const allKeys = []; // Add keys from map1 to allKeys for (const key of map1.keys()) { allKeys.push(key); } // Add keys from map2 to allKeys for (const key of map2.keys()) { allKeys.push(key); } console.log(allKeys);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for iterating over the keys of two `Map` objects: using `Array.from()` with spread syntax (`...`) and using traditional `for...of` loops with `push()`. The test case creates two `Map` objects, `map1` and `map2`, and then attempts to concatenate their keys using each approach.

**Benchmark Options**

There are two main options being compared:

### 1. Using `Array.from()` with spread syntax (`...`)

```javascript
const allKeys = [...keysFromMap1, ...keysFromMap2];
```

Pros:

* Convenient and concise way to create a new array from the keys of multiple maps.
* Efficient, as it uses a single allocation and iteration over the keys.

Cons:

* May have overhead due to the creation of a new array.
* May not be suitable for very large datasets, as it requires additional memory.

### 2. Using traditional `for...of` loops with `push()`

```javascript
const allKeys = [];
for (const key of map1.keys()) {
  allKeys.push(key);
}
for (const key of map2.keys()) {
  allKeys.push(key);
}
```

Pros:

* Can be more memory-efficient, as it only requires a single array allocation.
* Can be beneficial for very large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new array.

Cons:

* More verbose and less convenient than using `Array.from()` with spread syntax.
* May have performance overhead due to the need to manage the array's length manually.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the built-in `Map` object, which is part of the ECMAScript standard library. The purpose of `Map` is to provide a key-value store that allows efficient lookup and iteration over its contents.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It only uses standard ECMAScript features, such as `Map`, `Array.from()`, `for...of` loops, and `push()`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using alternative approaches, some options could include:

* Using `Set` objects instead of `Map` for iteration.
* Using `forEach()` method instead of traditional `for...of` loops with `push()`.
* Using other methods like `reduce()` or `concat()` to concatenate the keys.

However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark code and might not accurately represent the performance characteristics of the original approaches.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spread	90647.8 Ops/sec
push	57254.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test push spread map2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs push

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

push

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):