Benchmark: array.push vs object literal vs array literal

Script Preparation code:

var props = { x: 1, y: 2, onClick: () => {}, onMouseDown: () => {}, onMouseUp: () => {}, visible: false }

Tests:

array.push
const a = [] Object.keys(props).forEach(it => { a.push('x', props[it]) })
object literal
const a = {} if (props.x != null) { a.x = props.x } if (props.y != null) { a.y = props.y } if (props.alpha != null) { a.alpha = props.alpha } if ('onClick' in props) { a.onClick = props.onClick } if ('onMouseDown' in props) { a.onMouseDown = props.onMouseDown } if ('onMouseUp' in props) { a.onMouseUp = props.onMouseUp } if ('visible' in props) { a.visible = props.visible }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array.push
object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents three different approaches to achieve the same result:

1. `array.push`: This approach uses the `push` method of an array to add elements to it. In this case, the array is initialized with two properties: `x` and `y`, which are populated with values from the `props` object.
2. `object literal`: This approach creates a new object literal (i.e., an object defined using curly brackets `{}`) and assigns its properties directly to it. The properties are also populated with values from the `props` object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **Pros of array.push:**
	+ Easy to implement, as it's a familiar method for many developers.
	+ Might be faster due to the optimized implementation in V8 (the JavaScript engine used by most modern browsers).
* **Cons of array.push:**
	+ Requires an extra step to initialize the array before using `push`.
	+ May involve more memory allocation and garbage collection, as arrays are mutable objects.

**Pros of object literal:**

* **Easy to implement**, as it's a concise way to create an object with named properties.
* Might be faster due to the optimized implementation in V8 (some benchmarks suggest that object literals can be slower than array push, but this is still a topic of debate).

**Cons of object literal:**

* Requires knowledge of object literal syntax and property assignment.
* May involve more overhead due to the creation of a new object.

**Library/Feature Usage**

There are no notable libraries or features used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers may optimize `object literal` construction using techniques like "static typing" or "property lookup," which could affect performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. Using an array constructor (`new Array()`) instead of `[]` to initialize the array.
2. Using the spread operator (`[...props]`) to create a new array from the `props` object's properties.
3. Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide utility functions for working with arrays and objects.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional overhead or complexity, so it's essential to consider your specific use case and performance requirements before experimenting with different approaches.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: iCab/9.6.4 CFNetwork/711.2.23 Darwin 14.0.0

Browser/OS: iCab 9 on Other

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array.push	286364.6 Ops/sec
object literal	453024.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array.push vs object literal vs array literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array.push vs object literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

array.push

object literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):