Benchmark: prepend - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

 var someBigArray = [];
  var anotherArray = [];
  
  for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
    someBigArray.push(10);
    anotherArray.push(10);
  }

Tests:

push
anotherArray.forEach(function(item) { someBigArray.push(item); })
cp
var cp = someBigArray.slice(0); anotherArray.forEach(function(item) { cp.push(item); })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
cp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a crucial aspect of software development, especially when it comes to benchmarking and optimization.

Let's break down the provided JSON data:

**Benchmark Definition**

The first object represents a benchmark definition, which defines the behavior to be measured:
```json
{
    "Name": "prepend",
    "Description": null,
    "Script Preparation Code": "...",
    "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```
Here's what's being tested:

* **Script Preparation Code**: This code sets up an array `someBigArray` with 10,000 elements and another array `anotherArray` also with 10,000 elements. The script is then run.
* **Html Preparation Code**: There is no HTML preparation code provided.

The purpose of this benchmark is likely to measure the performance of the `push()` method on arrays when used in conjunction with other array methods (in this case, `forEach`).

**Individual Test Cases**

The second part represents individual test cases within the benchmark:
```json
[
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "...",
        "Test Name": "push"
    },
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "...",
        "Test Name": "cp"
    }
]
```
There are two test cases:

* **`push()`**: This test case uses the `forEach()` method on `anotherArray`, which iterates over each element in the array and pushes it onto `someBigArray`.
* **`cp` (Copy Push)**: This test case creates a copy of `someBigArray` using `slice(0)`, then uses `forEach()` on `anotherArray`, pushing elements to the copied array.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **`push()`**: This is a straightforward method that iterates over the target array (`anotherArray`) and pushes elements onto the original array (`someBigArray`). Pros: simple, easy to understand. Cons:
	+ May not be optimized for performance.
	+ Can lead to unnecessary memory allocation if `someBigArray` grows significantly.
* **`cp (Copy Push)`**: This approach creates a copy of the target array and pushes elements onto the copied array. Pros: potentially faster due to reduced memory allocation, avoids modifying the original array. Cons:
	+ Requires additional memory allocation for the copy.
	+ May not be as efficient if the copied array is not properly optimized.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, here are some alternatives:

1. **Use a more robust testing framework**: Consider using libraries like Jest, Mocha, or Benchmark.js to create and run benchmarks.
2. **Add additional test cases**: You could add more test cases to cover different scenarios, such as:
	* Using `splice()` instead of `push()`.
	* Comparing performance with different array lengths.
	* Measuring performance with concurrent iterations (e.g., using Web Workers).
3. **Optimize the script preparation code**: Consider optimizing the script preparation code to make it more efficient or smaller, which could potentially affect benchmark results.

Keep in mind that this is just a starting point, and you may want to experiment with different approaches and libraries to find the best fit for your specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 54 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
push	841.0 Ops/sec
cp	2.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

prepend (version: 7)

Comparing performance of: push vs cp

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

push

cp

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):