Benchmark: Fill Array - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Fill method
var arr = Array(160).fill("");
Loop method
var arr = []; var line = ""; for (var i = 0; i < 120; i++) { line[i] = ""; arr.push(line[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Fill method
Loop method

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 JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases:

1. **Fill Array**: This test case measures the performance of filling an array with a string value using the `fill()` method.
2. **Loop Method**: This test case measures the performance of filling an array by looping and pushing individual strings to the array.

**Options compared**

The main options being compared are:

* **`fill()` method vs. Loops (push)**
	+ **Pros of `fill()` method:**
		- More concise and readable code.
		- Often faster, as it uses a optimized C++ implementation under the hood.
	+ **Cons of `fill()` method:**
		- May not be suitable for all use cases, as it requires an initial value.
		- Can lead to unexpected behavior if the array is not initialized correctly.
	+ **Pros of Loops (push):**
		- More flexible and suitable for all use cases, including arrays that need to be resized or modified dynamically.
		- Allows for more control over the loop iteration and condition.
	+ **Cons of Loops (push):**
		- Often slower than `fill()` method due to the overhead of repeated push operations.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If you need a high performance solution for large arrays or frequent fill operations, the `fill()` method might be a better choice.
* **Code readability and maintainability**: If code readability is more important than raw performance, the loop-based approach with explicit push operations might be a better fit.
* **Array modifications**: If your array needs to be modified dynamically (e.g., resizing or removing elements), the loop-based approach is likely a better option.

**Library usage**

There is no library used in these benchmark test cases. The code snippets are self-contained and use only built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in these benchmark test cases.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following options:

* **`Array.from()` method**: This method can be used to fill an array with a string value. However, its performance might not be as good as the `fill()` method.
* **Custom implementation using `TypedArray`**: You could implement your own optimized filling function using a `TypedArray` (e.g., `Uint8Array`) for more control over data type and storage layout.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or complexity, so be sure to profile and benchmark them before making a decision.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Fill method	808129.8 Ops/sec
Loop method	24124.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Fill Array (version: 2)

Fill Array

Comparing performance of: Fill method vs Loop method

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Fill method

Loop method

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):