Benchmark: huihuhiuhuh - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

new Array fill
const arr = (new Array(10_000_000)).fill(1);
for init
const arr = []; for(let i = 0; i < 10_000_000; i++) { arr[i] = 1|0; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Array fill
for init

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 JSON data and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmarking**

MeasureThat.net is a platform for comparing JavaScript performance across different browsers and devices. The website provides a simple way to create and run microbenchmarks, which are small scripts that measure the execution time of specific JavaScript operations.

**JSON Data Explanation**

The JSON data consists of three main sections:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: This section defines the benchmark itself, including its name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code. In this case, the benchmark definition is empty, which means that no additional setup or configuration is required.
2. **Individual Test Cases**: This section lists individual test cases, each with a unique "Test Name" and a "Benchmark Definition". The Benchmark Definition specifies the JavaScript code that will be executed during the test. There are two test cases in this example:
	* "new Array fill": This test case creates an array of 10 million elements using the `Array.prototype.fill()` method.
	* "for init": This test case creates an empty array and initializes it with a loop using bitwise OR operator (`|`).
3. **Latest Benchmark Result**: This section displays the latest results for each test case, including the browser name, device platform, operating system, executions per second, and test name.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.fill()` method**: This approach creates an array of a specified length and fills it with a value.
2. **Using a loop to initialize an empty array**: This approach initializes an empty array using a loop with bitwise OR operator (`|`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.fill()` method**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and concise.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments.
2. **Using a loop to initialize an empty array**:
	* Pros: Works in older browsers and environments, can be useful for debugging.
	* Cons: Slower, less efficient, and more verbose.

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* **Memory allocation**: How much memory is allocated during the test?
* **Garbage collection**: How does JavaScript garbage collection impact performance?
* **Browser-specific optimizations**: Are there any browser-specific optimizations that can affect performance?

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

In this example, no libraries or special JS features are mentioned. However, in other benchmarks, you might see:

* Libraries: `console.time()`, `performance.now()`, etc.
* Special JS features: `async/await`, `let` and `const` declarations, etc.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.map()` method**: Instead of using a loop or `fill()` method, use `map()` to create an array.
2. **Using `Buffer.alloc()` method**: Use `Buffer` API to allocate memory and perform operations on it.
3. **Using WebAssembly**: Explore WebAssembly (WASM) for efficient and fast execution.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best choice depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.84 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Array fill	40.7 Ops/sec
for init	7.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

huihuhiuhuh (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Array fill vs for init

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Array fill

for init

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):