Benchmark: empties vs small array

Script Preparation code:

var array1 = [];
array1[1600] = 2;
var array2 = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, {124: 2}, {124: 2}, {124: 2}, {124: 2}, {124: 2}];

Tests:

1500 empty elements
array1.map(item => item)
about 10 integer elements
array2.map(item => item)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1500 empty elements
about 10 integer elements

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark defines two tests:

1. `array1.map(item => item)`
2. `array2.map(item => item)`

In JavaScript, the `map()` method is used to create a new array with the results of applying a provided function on every element in this array. The function takes an argument, applies it to the current element, and returns the result.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Empty Array (`array1`)**: An empty array is created, and then an attempt is made to access its 1600th element (which doesn't exist). The purpose of this is likely to test how browsers handle accessing non-existent elements in the DOM.
2. **Small Array (`array2`)**: A small array with 10 integer elements is created. This test likely aims to measure the browser's performance when dealing with a relatively small, finite dataset.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

* Using an empty array:
	+ Pros: Low memory usage and quick execution.
	+ Cons: Tests how browsers handle accessing non-existent elements in the DOM, which might not be as relevant to most use cases.
* Using a small array:
	+ Pros: More realistic representation of real-world data, tests browser performance with a finite dataset.
	+ Cons: May require more memory and computational resources compared to an empty array.

**Library and Purpose:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `map()` method is used as part of the standard JavaScript library.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests only utilize standard JavaScript methods (`map()`) and array operations.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases with varying dataset sizes, data types (e.g., strings, objects), or use specific JavaScript libraries like `Lodash` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`.

For example, you could add tests like:

* Using `reduce()`: `array2.reduce((acc, item) => acc + item)`
* Testing performance with large datasets: Create a larger array and repeat the `map()` test.
* Comparing performance between different data types (e.g., numbers, strings): Use arrays of different data types to see how browsers handle them.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and preparation code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.141 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1500 empty elements	27670.9 Ops/sec
about 10 integer elements	9440417.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

empties vs small array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1500 empty elements vs about 10 integer elements

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1500 empty elements

about 10 integer elements

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):