Benchmark: Array fill method vs for loop 2D

Tests:

For Loop fill
let m = 10000, n = 10000; let arrayTest = new Array(m); for (let i = 0; i < m; i++){ arrayTest[i] = []; for(let j = 0; j < n; j++) { arrayTest[i][j] = 0; } }
Array Fill
let m = 10000, n = 10000; let arrayTest = (new Array(m).fill()).map(() => new Array(n).fill(0));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For Loop fill
Array Fill

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.6.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Loop fill	5.3 Ops/sec
Array Fill	6.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a traditional `for` loop and an array `fill` method to initialize 2D arrays with zeros.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Traditional `for` Loop**: The first option uses a nested `for` loop to create the 2D array.
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < m; i++) {
  for(let j = 0; j < n; j++) {
    arrayTest[i][j] = 0;
  }
}
```
**Pros and Cons**

The traditional `for` loop approach has some pros:

* Easy to understand and implement.
* Can be useful when working with complex loops or conditional logic.

However, it also has some cons:

* Can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of repeated checks and assignments.
* May not be optimized by JavaScript engines.

**Array `fill` Method**

The second option uses the array `fill` method to create an initialized array.
```javascript
arrayTest = (new Array(m).fill()).map(() => new Array(n).fill(0));
```
This approach is more concise and expressive, but also has some pros:

* Often faster than traditional loops due to optimized implementations by JavaScript engines.
* Reduces the likelihood of programmer errors.

However, it also has some cons:

* May be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with this syntax.
* Can lead to subtle bugs if not properly understood.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library used. However, it's worth noting that the `fill` method is a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting these results, consider the following factors:

* **JavaScript Engine Optimizations**: Modern JavaScript engines are highly optimized and may cache certain operations, which can affect benchmark results.
* **Platform and Hardware Factors**: The results may vary depending on the specific platform, hardware, and operating system being used.

**Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches or modify this benchmark, here are some options:

1. Use other initialization methods, such as `Array.from()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`.
2. Modify the size of the arrays (m and n) to see how performance changes.
3. Add additional tests for edge cases, such as initializing arrays with NaN values or non-numeric data.
4. Experiment with different JavaScript engines or platforms to compare results.

Keep in mind that benchmarking can be complex, and results may vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

Related benchmarks:

Array fill method vs for loop 2D (version: 0)

Array fill method vs for loop performance validation

Comparing performance of: For Loop fill vs Array Fill

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For Loop fill

Array Fill

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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