Benchmark: array size 2 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

undefined
let myArray = []; for (let i=0; i<1024; i++) { myArray.push("foo" + i); }
defined
let myArray = new Array(1024); for (let i=0; i<1024; i++) { myArray.push("foo" + i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
undefined
defined

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Test Case 1: "undefined"**

This test case creates an empty array using `let myArray = []` and then uses a `for` loop to push 1024 strings onto it. The script preparation code is empty, which means no additional setup or initialization is performed before running the benchmark.

**What's being tested:** This test case measures the performance of JavaScript arrays when they are initialized with an explicit size using `new Array(size)` versus not explicitly initializing them (i.e., letting JavaScript default to a minimum size).

**Options compared:**

* **`let myArray = []`**: This approach creates an array with a dynamic, variable size. The size is determined by the amount of data pushed onto it.
* **`let myArray = new Array(1024)`**: This approach creates an array with a fixed size of 1024 elements.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Implicit array initialization (`let myArray = []`)**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to use, as no explicit size needs to be specified.
	+ Cons:
		- Performance may vary depending on the amount of data pushed onto the array.
		- Can lead to slower performance if the array grows dynamically.
* **Explicit array initialization (`let myArray = new Array(1024)`**
	+ Pros:
		- Guaranteed fixed size, which can improve performance for large datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires explicit specification of the size, which can be error-prone.

**Library and syntax:** This test case doesn't use any external libraries or special JavaScript features. The focus is on measuring the performance difference between two specific array initialization approaches.

Now, let's look at the second test case:

**Test Case 2: "defined"**

This test case creates an array with a fixed size of 1024 elements using `let myArray = new Array(1024)` and then uses a `for` loop to push 1024 strings onto it.

The script preparation code is empty, just like the first test case. However, this time we're comparing performance between two different ways of initializing an array with a known size:

**Options compared:**

* **`let myArray = new Array(1024)`**: This approach creates an array with a fixed size of 1024 elements.
* **`let myArray = []` (with dynamic growth)**: This approach creates an array that grows dynamically as data is pushed onto it.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Fixed-size array initialization (`let myArray = new Array(1024)`**
	+ Pros:
		- Guaranteed fixed size, which can improve performance for large datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires explicit specification of the size, which can be error-prone.
* **Dynamic array growth (`let myArray = []`)**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to use, as no explicit size needs to be specified.
	+ Cons:
		- Performance may vary depending on the amount of data pushed onto the array.

**Library and syntax:** Like the previous test case, this one doesn't use any external libraries or special JavaScript features. The focus is on measuring performance differences between two different initialization approaches.

Other alternatives to these two approaches include:

* Using `Array.from()` to create an array from an iterable source.
* Using a library like Lodash's `from` function to create an array with a fixed size.
* Using a language-specific feature, such as C++11's `std::vector`, which provides guaranteed performance for large datasets.

However, since this benchmark is focused on JavaScript, these alternatives are not considered.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.79 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
undefined	24912.1 Ops/sec
defined	24021.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array size 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: undefined vs defined

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

undefined

defined

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):