Benchmark: loop vs map v3 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array.from({length: 2000}, (_, i) => i * 10)

Tests:

loop and push
var output = [] for(var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { output.push('<li>element number ' + i + '</li>') }
map
var output = array.map(function (el, i) { return '<li>element number ' + i + '</li>'})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loop and push
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark JSON data.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to generate HTML elements: using a traditional `for` loop with `push()` or using the `Array.prototype.map()` method.

**Options compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Traditional `loop and push`:** This approach uses a `for` loop to iterate over an array, and for each iteration, it pushes a new HTML element into an output array.
2. **`map()` method:** This approach uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method to transform the input array into a new array of HTML elements.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional `loop and push`:**
	+ Pros:
		- More control over the iteration process, allowing for more complex logic.
		- Can be more efficient for small arrays or specific use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual management of array indices and bounds checking.
		- May have performance overhead due to array push operations.
* **`map()` method:**
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and expressive syntax, reducing boilerplate code.
		- Eliminates the need for manual iteration and bounds checking.
		- Often faster and more efficient for large arrays or complex transformations.
	+ Cons:
		- May have overhead due to function calls and method lookups.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark data. However, it's worth noting that `Array.prototype.map()` relies on the Array prototype, which is a built-in JavaScript object.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code only utilizes standard JavaScript constructs.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to consider for generating HTML elements include:

* **`forEach()` method:** Similar to `map()`, but returns `undefined` instead of an array.
* **`reduce()` method:** Can be used to accumulate and transform data into a single value, which can then be used to generate HTML elements.
* **ES6 `for...of` loop:** A more modern iteration syntax that eliminates the need for manual indexing.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer significant performance benefits over the traditional `loop and push` or `map()` method approaches. The benchmark data provides a good starting point for understanding the performance characteristics of different HTML generation strategies.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.62 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 71 on Mac OS X 10.14.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
loop and push	5064.0 Ops/sec
map	29442.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

loop vs map v3 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: loop and push vs map

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

loop and push

map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):