Benchmark: Array item swapping, destructuring vs temp variable

Script Preparation code:

function tempSwap(array) {
    const length = array.length;
    const swap1 = Math.floor(Math.random() * length);
    const swap2 = Math.floor(Math.random() * length);
    const temp = array[swap1];

    array[swap1] = array[swap2];
    array[swap2] = array[temp];
}

function destructuringSwap(array) {
    const length = array.length;
    const swap1 = Math.floor(Math.random() * length);
    const swap2 = Math.floor(Math.random() * length);

    return [
        array[swap1],
        array[swap2]
    ] = [
        array[swap2],
        array[swap1]
    ];
}

Tests:

Length 10 temp swap
tempSwap(new Array(10));
Length 10 destructuring swap
destructuringSwap(new Array(10));
Length 100 temp swap
tempSwap(new Array(100));
Length 100 destructuring swap
destructuringSwap(new Array(100));
Length 1000 temp swap
tempSwap(new Array(1000));
Length 1000 destructuring swap
destructuringSwap(new Array(1000));

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 10 runs

Length 10 destructuring swap

31.3M/s

Length 10 temp swap

24.5M/s

Length 100 temp swap

15.0M/s

Length 100 destructuring swap

13.5M/s

Length 1000 destructuring swap

2.9M/s

Length 1000 temp swap

2.8M/s

Fastest: Length 10 destructuring swap (11.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Length 10 destructuring swap: 31,348,802 ops/sec
• Length 10 temp swap: 24,476,852 ops/sec
• Length 100 temp swap: 14,973,391 ops/sec
• Length 100 destructuring swap: 13,547,130 ops/sec
• Length 1000 destructuring swap: 2,908,015 ops/sec
• Length 1000 temp swap: 2,839,740 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

Length 10 temp swap

10.7M/s

Length 10 destructuring swap

8.4M/s

Length 100 destructuring swap

3.3M/s

Length 100 temp swap

3.3M/s

Length 1000 temp swap

377K/s

Length 1000 destructuring swap

343K/s

Fastest: Length 10 temp swap (31.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Length 10 temp swap: 10,745,978 ops/sec
• Length 10 destructuring swap: 8,405,135 ops/sec
• Length 100 destructuring swap: 3,315,364 ops/sec
• Length 100 temp swap: 3,261,034 ops/sec
• Length 1000 temp swap: 377,085 ops/sec
• Length 1000 destructuring swap: 343,291 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Length 10 temp swap
Length 10 destructuring swap
Length 100 temp swap
Length 100 destructuring swap
Length 1000 temp swap
Length 1000 destructuring swap

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Length 10 temp swap

10.3M/s

Length 10 destructuring swap

6.7M/s

Length 100 destructuring swap

2.8M/s

Length 100 temp swap

2.8M/s

Length 1000 destructuring swap

958K/s

Length 1000 temp swap

901K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Length 10 temp swap	10,288,681 Ops/sec
Length 10 destructuring swap	6,725,437 Ops/sec
Length 100 destructuring swap	2,823,133 Ops/sec
Length 100 temp swap	2,771,988 Ops/sec
Length 1000 destructuring swap	957,672 Ops/sec
Length 1000 temp swap	901,148 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark test and provide an explanation of what's being tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Test Overview**

The provided benchmark test measures the performance difference between two approaches to swap array items:

1. **Temp Variable Approach**: This method uses a temporary variable to hold one of the swapped elements before swapping them.
2. **Destructuring Approach**: This method uses destructuring assignment to swap the elements in a single statement.

**Temp Variable Approach**

This approach creates a temporary variable `temp` and assigns it the value of the first element being swapped (`array[swap1]`). Then, it assigns the value of the second element being swapped (`array[swap2]`) to the original position of the first element (`array[swap1]`), and finally assigns the value of the temporary variable back to the second element's original position (`array[swap2]`).

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Can be optimized for specific use cases

Cons:

* Requires an extra memory allocation (the temporary variable) and assignment, which can lead to performance overhead

**Destructuring Approach**

This approach uses the syntax `[a, b] = [b, a]` to swap the elements. This is achieved by using destructuring assignment to assign the values of the two arrays in reverse order.

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable
* Eliminates the need for an extra memory allocation (the temporary variable)

Cons:

* May not be as easy to understand for developers unfamiliar with destructuring assignment

**Library and Purpose**

The `Array.prototype.swap` method is used in some of the benchmark test cases, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, based on the implementation, it appears that this method uses a temporary variable under the hood.

The `Array.prototype.splice` method is also used, which allows for swapping elements without creating a new array or using an extra memory allocation.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

This benchmark test does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It relies on standard JavaScript language constructs and built-in methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If the goal is to swap two elements in an array, other approaches can be considered:

* **Using `assign` method**: This approach uses the `Array.prototype.assign()` method to swap the elements, which is similar to the temp variable approach but eliminates the need for an extra memory allocation.
* **Using `forEach` and indexing**: This approach uses the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method and manual indexing to swap the elements. While it's more verbose than the other approaches, it can be optimized for specific use cases.

In conclusion, the benchmark test measures the performance difference between two approaches to swap array items: temp variable approach and destructuring approach. The temp variable approach requires an extra memory allocation and assignment, while the destructuring approach is more concise but may not be as easy to understand.

Array item swapping, destructuring vs temp variable (version: 1)

Array destructuring vs temp variable use in array item swapping

Comparing performance of: `Length 10 temp swap vs Length 10 destructuring swap vs Length 100 temp swap vs Length 100 destructuring swap vs Length 1000 temp swap vs Length 1000 destructuring swap`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Length 10 temp swap

Length 10 destructuring swap

Length 100 temp swap

Length 100 destructuring swap

Length 1000 temp swap

Length 1000 destructuring swap

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 10 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Array item swapping, destructuring vs temp variable (version: 1)

Array destructuring vs temp variable use in array item swapping

Comparing performance of: Length 10 temp swap vs Length 10 destructuring swap vs Length 100 temp swap vs Length 100 destructuring swap vs Length 1000 temp swap vs Length 1000 destructuring swap

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Length 10 temp swap

Length 10 destructuring swap

Length 100 temp swap

Length 100 destructuring swap

Length 1000 temp swap

Length 1000 destructuring swap

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 16 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 10 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Length 10 temp swap vs Length 10 destructuring swap vs Length 100 temp swap vs Length 100 destructuring swap vs Length 1000 temp swap vs Length 1000 destructuring swap`