Benchmark: reate array by lenght

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

/*your preparation JavaScript code goes here
To execute async code during the script preparation, wrap it as function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction, example:*/
async function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction() {
    // This function is optional, feel free to remove it.
    // await someThing();
}

Tests:

new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500)
new Array(500).fill(0)
[...Array(6)].map(x => 0);
[...Array(6)].map(x => 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500)
[...Array(6)].map(x => 0);

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 26 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500)	2900678.5 Ops/sec
[...Array(6)].map(x => 0);	35458124.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark definition tests various methods for creating and populating arrays in JavaScript. Specifically, it compares two different approaches to achieving similar outcomes using array creation and filling methods:

1. **Using `new Array(500).fill(0)`**:
   - **Test Name**: `new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500)`.
   - In this method, a new array of length 500 is created, and the `fill` method assigns the value `0` to all elements in the array.
   - **Pros**:
     - Directly creates a fixed-length array and fills it in a single operation.
     - The syntax is clear and straightforward for initializing an array with repeated values.
   - **Cons**:
     - Allocating a large array with `new Array(length)` without initializing values could lead to unnecessary memory usage and performance overhead, especially when filling is not performed.
     - The usage of `fill` can lead to misunderstandings about memory allocation, as the fill operation does not affect the prototype chain.

2. **Using the spread operator and `map`**:
   - **Test Name**: `([...Array(6)].map(x => 0));`
   - This method first creates an array of 6 empty slots using the spread operator `[...]`, and then it utilizes the `map` method to apply the function `x => 0`, which fills all slots with the value `0`.
   - **Pros**:
     - Using array destructuring with the spread operator is a modern approach that uses functional programming paradigms, enhancing readability and functional style.
     - It effectively demonstrates the power of mapping functions and can be easily adapted for more complex operations besides just filling with a constant value.
   - **Cons**:
     - The initial creation of an array with empty slots followed by mapping could introduce additional overhead, particularly with larger arrays, as each element must be processed by the mapping function.
     - Depending on the implementation, this approach may be more inefficient when used for very large numbers of elements.

### Performance Results

From the benchmark results, we see varying executions per second for each method:
- `([...Array(6)].map(x => 0);)` yields **35,458,124.0** executions per second.
- `new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500)` shows **2,900,678.5** executions per second.

### Considerations and Alternatives

1. **Performance-wise**: The first approach (`new Array(500).fill(0)`) appears to perform significantly slower than the second method involving the spread operator and `map`. This could be due to execution overhead when filling succinctly with `fill()` compared to mapping.

2. **Alternative Approaches**:
   - **Using Array.from**: A modern method like `Array.from({length: 500}, () => 0)` creates an array of a specified length and initializes all values using a mapping function. This would be a more readable and functional alternative compared to traditional methods.
   - **Traditional For Loop**: A simple for loop could also achieve similar results, albeit possibly with less elegance compared to modern methods. Example: 
     ```javascript
     let arr = new Array(500);
     for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
         arr[i] = 0;
     }
     ```
   - **Reduce or forEach method**: While less commonly used for this purpose, methods like `Array.prototype.forEach()` can implement initialization processes in more complex scenarios.

In summary, this benchmark demonstrates two effective yet different strategies for creating and populating arrays in JavaScript, highlighting their respective performance characteristics, advantages, and potential limitations. Software engineers can select the most suitable method depending on context, readability, and performance needs when working with arrays.

Related benchmarks:

reate array by lenght (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500) vs [...Array(6)].map(x => 0);

Created: 26 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Array(500).fill(0, 0, 500)

[...Array(6)].map(x => 0);

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 26 days ago):