Benchmark: native test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

native
var test = []; for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){ test[test.length] = i; }
not native
var test = []; for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){ test.push(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
not native

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases, each testing different approaches to creating an array and performing a simple operation on it. The first test case uses native JavaScript syntax (`var test = []; for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { test[test.length] = i; }`), while the second test case uses the `push()` method (`var test = []; for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { test.push(i); }`). Both tests aim to determine which approach is faster.

**Options compared:**

The two approaches being tested are:

1. **Native JavaScript syntax**: Using the array's `length` property to dynamically set an index, and then assigning a value to that index (`test[test.length] = i;`).
2. **`push()` method**: Using the `push()` method to add elements to the end of the array.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Native JavaScript syntax**:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient for large arrays, as it avoids the overhead of function calls.
		+ Can be faster for very large arrays due to the lack of bounds checking.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual memory management (index assignment), which can lead to bugs and security vulnerabilities if not done correctly.
		+ May have performance advantages only at extremely high array sizes, which is unlikely for typical use cases.
2. **`push()` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and maintain than native syntax, as it abstracts away the index assignment logic.
		+ Provides a more consistent interface for adding elements to arrays, making code more predictable.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur performance overhead due to bounds checking and function call overhead.

**Library usage:**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, MeasureThat.net is likely using its own internal library or framework to parse the benchmark definitions, run the tests, and gather results.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in this example, but it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net might be testing other features or syntax not present here, such as async/await, generators, or advanced array methods like `map()` or `forEach()`.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to creating arrays and performing operations on them, consider the following:

1. **Array constructors**: Using the `Array` constructor (`new Array(100000)`), which provides a more explicit way of creating an array.
2. **Typed arrays**: Using typed arrays like `Uint8Array`, `Float32Array`, or others, which provide efficient memory management for specific data types.
3. **Linked list implementations**: Implementing linked lists instead of arrays to optimize memory usage and access patterns.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant for typical use cases, but can be interesting to explore for specific performance-critical applications or research projects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 52 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native	983.9 Ops/sec
not native	1151.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

native test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs not native

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

not native

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):