Benchmark: Pushing vs Filling

Tests:

Filling Array
const array = Array(10000); for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { array[i] = Math.random(); }
Adding to Array
const array = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { array.push(Math.random()) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filling Array
Adding to Array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 24 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filling Array	20833.9 Ops/sec
Adding to Array	10590.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON data represents two individual test cases, which compare the performance of filling an array versus adding elements to an empty array using the `Math.random()` function.

**Options compared:**

The two test cases compare the following options:

1. Filling an existing array (`Array(10000)`): This approach uses a pre-existing array with 10,000 elements and fills them with random values.
2. Adding elements to an empty array (`[]`): This approach creates an empty array and adds 10,000 random elements using the `push()` method.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. Filling an existing array:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster since the array is already initialized.
		+ May take advantage of the browser's caching mechanism for the array.
	* Cons:
		+ The array must be large enough to hold 10,000 elements, which can consume a lot of memory.
		+ If the array is not optimized for performance, it may slow down the filling process.
2. Adding elements to an empty array:
	* Pros:
		+ Does not require a pre-existing array, reducing memory consumption.
		+ Can be more efficient if the browser's caching mechanism does not apply.
	* Cons:
		+ May take longer since the array needs to be created and populated with 10,000 elements.

**Library usage:**

There is no library used in these test cases. The `Array(10000)` syntax creates an array with a specified length, and the `Math.random()` function generates random numbers.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases.

**Other considerations:**

When running microbenchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Garbage collection: How does the browser handle garbage collection during the benchmarking process?
* Cache behavior: Does the browser cache the array data, and if so, how does that impact performance?
* System resources: What are the system resources (CPU, memory) being utilized by the browser during the benchmark?

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for creating microbenchmarks include:

1. Using the `Date.now()` function to measure execution time.
2. Creating a separate thread or worker to execute the test case, which can help isolate platform-specific optimizations.
3. Comparing different array sizes (e.g., 1000, 10,000) to see how performance scales with array size.

These alternatives can provide more detailed insights into the performance characteristics of specific browser versions and platforms.

Related benchmarks:

Pushing vs Filling (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Filling Array vs Adding to Array

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Filling Array

Adding to Array

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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